Horticultural products, including fruits, vegetables and tree nuts, have projected exports of $28.0 billion for FY 2012, up from $25.9 billion in FY 2011.  They have had strong growth since FY 2000, when exports were $10.5 billion, except for the recession year of FY 2009 when exports declined by 0.8 percent before resuming growth again in FY 2010.  Projections of volume by fiscal year are not available.

Livestock, poultry and dairy had equally rapid growth from $11.7 billion in FY 2000 to $29.2 billion projected for FY 2012.  Exports were hit harder by the 2009 recession, down 14.4 percent, and a decline in FY 2004 because of the loss of beef exports due to the discovery of BSE in late 2003.    Beef exports on a volume basis have been strong since the BSE issues in 2004 and pork from 2000 forward.

Horticulture and livestock, poultry and dairy together account for $57.2 billion of U.S. exports in FY 2012, 43.7 percent of total agricultural exports. Exports of the two categories in 2000 were $22.2 billion dollars and 43.8 percent of the totals.

The largest category of exports is ‘major bulk commodities’ – wheat, rice, coarse grains, soybeans, cotton and unmanufactured tobacco.  Exports are projected at $47.9 billion in FY 2012 and over the previous four years varied from $36.8 billion in FY 2009 to $57.9 billion in FY 2011, with a five year average, including this year, of $46.8 billion.  On a volume basis, million metric tons (MMT), exports will be 111.7 MMT for FY 2012, with the previous four-year high of 138.9 MMT in FY 2008, a low of 115.3 MMT in FY 2009 and a five-year average of 125.1 MMT.

Exports of oilseeds and products, mostly soybeans and products, are the most consistent year-to-year because markets have been growing, particularly in Asia.  The dollar value for FY 2012 is projected at $25.0 billion, down from the four year high last year (FY 2011) of $29.2 and up from the low of $20.9 billion in FY 2009.  The five-year average is $24.6 billion.  Whole soybean exports are projected at 35.2 MMT for FY 2012, with a high over the last four years of 41.6 MMT in FY 2010, a low of 30.8 MMT in FY 2008 and a five-year average of 36.6 MMT.

Wheat is the most volatile of the major bulk product markets.  For FY 2012 exports are projected at $8.0 billion, with the previous four-year high of $12.3 billion in FY 2008, a low of $5.9 billion in FY 2010 and a five year average of $8.7 billion. Exports on a volume basis are projected for this year at 25.2 MMT, with the previous four-year high of 34.5 MMT in FY 2011, a low of 22.5 MMT in FY 2009 and a five-year average of 28.2 MMT.

Cotton has historically not been as volatile as wheat, but record high price led to export value of $8.9 billion in FY 2011, after a low of $3.5 billion in FY 2009.  The projection for exports this year is $6.2 billion and the five-year average of $5.6 is billion.  The volume of cotton exports over five years was much more stable with a high of 3.0 MMT for FY 2008 and FY 2011, a low of 2.4 MMT for this year and a five-year average of 2.8 MMT.

Corn has been the biggest volume in exports some years, but is far short of the value of exports of oilseeds.  Corn exports for FY 2012 are projected at $13.0 billion, with a previous four-year high of $14.0 billion in FY 2008, a low of $9.1 billion in FY 2010 and a five-year average of $11.7 billion.  The volume of corn exports is projected at 43.5 MMT in FY 2012, with the previous four-year high of 60.6 MMT in FY 2008, a low of 45.2 MMT in FY 2011 and a five-year average of 49.3 MMT.

The dollar value of exports is the most easily used measure of exports and it allows bulk, intermediate and consumer oriented products to be measured on a common scale, but it not a useful measure throughout supply chains.  The cotton industry had record dollar exports in FY 2011, but shipping companies operating on a fixed per unit fee moved about the same volume as in FY 2008 when the value of cotton exported was $4.0 billion less.  A barge operator handling corn and soybeans on the Mississippi River faces a similar situation.

Analysts trying to measure the success of President Obama’s National Export Initiative face a different set of challenges.  Exports of horticultural and livestock, poultry and dairy products will probably increase without the new program.  Overall real economic growth in the world resulting in more consumers in the middle class is likely the largest factor.  The value of U.S. wheat exports almost doubled in FY 2011 over FY 2010 because of the drought in the Black Sea region that increase the volume exported and its average price, not because of the new program.  The $3.5 billion decline in wheat exports in FY 2012 should not be used to criticize the President’s program when a good crop in Black Sea region increased competition.

Using a particular year as a base in looking at the growth in dollars or volume across the entire economy ignores the unique patterns of each industry.  The record U.S. agricultural exports of $114.9 billion in FY 2008 were a combination of large volumes and high market prices.  The export decline to $96.3 billion the following year with a combination of lower volumes and unit prices caused by the natural adjustments to high prices and the worldwide economic slowdown.  We were fortunate that agricultural export value and volumes recovered some in FY 2010.

The dollar value of higher-valued exports of horticultural and livestock product is an appropriate measure of export performance.  ‘Major bulk products’ will continue to bounce around in value and volume based on worldwide production and demand.  Higher unit prices are good, but increased volume is also important.

is it safe to buy generic viagra online

February 24, 2012

By Dario Thuburn

ROME — Microsoft founder Bill Gates on Thursday called for a “digital revolution” to alleviate world hunger by increasing agricultural productivity through satellites and genetically-engineered seed varieties.

“We have to think hard about how to start taking advantage of the digital revolution that is driving innovation including in farming,” the US billionaire philanthropist said in a speech at the UN rural poverty agency IFAD in Rome.

“If you care about the poorest, you care about agriculture. We believe that it’s possible for small farmers to double and in some cases even triple their yields in the next 20 years while preserving the land,” Gates said.

He gave as one example of innovation the genetic sequencing that allows cassava farmers in Africa to predict how individual seedlings will perform, shortening the time it takes to develop a new variety from 10 years to two.

Another key development is the use of satellite technology developed by defence departments to document data about individual fields, as well as information videos of farmers discussing best practices to help others.

“If we don’t do this, we’ll have a digital divide in agriculture,” he said.

Gates also defended the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the developing world and large-scale farm land investments by foreign states in the developing world — both highly controversial issues in the aid community.

“You should go out and talk to people growing rice and say do they mind that it was created in a laboratory when their child has enough to eat?” he told reporters at a small media roundtable after his speech.

“The change in the way mankind lives over the last several hundred years is based on adoption of innovative practices and we simply haven’t done enough for those in the greatest need to bring these things,” he said.

On the issue of land investments that are referred to by their critics as “land grabbing”, he said: “It’s not actually possible to grab the land. People don’t put it on boats and take it back to the Middle East.

“If we could have clear guidelines there could be more land deals and overall it could be very beneficial… The truth is the person who is most at risk on a land deal is the person who is putting the money in.”

Gates also unveiled $200 million (150 million euros) in new grants from his foundation to finance research on a new type of drought-resistant maize, a vaccine to help livestock farmers and a project for training farmers.

“Investments in agriculture are the best weapons against hunger and poverty,” he said, adding that his charitable foundation had committed $2.0 billion for farmers and was working on seven crops and one livestock vaccine.

Gates called for a new system of “public scorecards” for developing countries and UN food agencies that would measure things like agricultural productivity, the ability to feed families and farmer education systems.

“It’s something that can be pulled together over the next year,” he said.

“When I meet with an African leader, I’d love to have that report card. I have a report card for health…. Without the scorecards, the donors tend to fund fad-oriented, short-term things,” he told reporters.

The technology pioneer also criticised the work of the UN food agencies in Rome: the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD).

He said the current food and farming aid system was “outdated and somewhat inefficient” with a lot of “duplication.”

For these organisations to go digital will take “a lot of time,” he said.

Asked about the need for wider reforms of capitalism to help the poor, he said: “How do you get rid of its excesses, including the finance people who are paid these huge salaries, without hurting the beneficial things?”

He added: “I wish those Wall Street traders would have gone… and worked on maize and used their mathematical models to look at phenotype versus genotype. “It’s clearly imperfect but it’s the best system we have.”

February 19, 2012

By Dan Morain

Rich people with a cause cannot seem to resist inflicting their world views on no matter if they are levelheaded or wacky, and no matter where they reside.

It’s generally not a good thing for those of us who do live here.

Joseph Mercola is the latest guy seeking to improve the  Mercola is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago and runs a website, Mercola.com, which promotes his alternative, though generally unproven, health-related products and ideas.

Mercola donated at least $500,000 for a signature-gathering drive to place a measure on the November ballot that would require labeling of genetically modified food sold in California.

Although there’s no proof that genetically modified food has caused anyone’s nose to fall off, labeling is not a terribly bad idea. People like to know what they’re eating. But if the big money behind this proposal is a guide, the California Right to Know Genetically Modified Food Act would be an unmodified, unmitigated and unadulterated turkey.

Mercola refused to talk with me. Evidently, I have that effect on some people. But that doesn’t mean he keeps his own counsel. Mercola is all over the Internet, offering his  to whoever will listen and buy his wares.

Based on his rambling lectures posted on YouTube, I could not tell whether he fears the imminent appearance of black helicopters. But he certainly has a dark  particularly when he turns to the  which tries to police outlandish claims by the alternative health industry.

“The FDA is an agency that protects major industry and is tragically causing death and disease in this country and across the world,” Mercola declared in one rant.

Not surprisingly, Mercola has run afoul of the FDA, which has issued him three separate warnings telling him to cease making unproven claims, most recently about a device he apparently claimed could detect 

Mercola has issued many warnings of his own, about artificial sweeteners, nonstick cooking surfaces and microwaves from cellphones. He warns that chemotherapy kills rather than cures children with cancer; that  kill huge numbers of people; and that raw milk is good for you, despite numerous safety recalls.

Recently, he announced creation of an organization called Health Liberty and used the occasion to call for an end to dental amalgam, though studies show it causes no harm; fluoridation, despite evidence that it reduces  and vaccinations, though they have spared countless people from diseases and death.

He reserves special attention for genetically modified food and urges that it be labeled, the focus of the initiative that, alas, could be on the November ballot.

“There is more than enough evidence to suggest that this could be a very serious, if not the most serious risk, to the very existence of the human species,” he warns on a video.

Warming up, he adds: “Your  your food supply, everything you need to live a healthy life is now being taken away and controlled by a massive industrial complex and corrupt government.”

“Do we embrace everything our supporters believe? No,” said Doug Linney, the initiative’s campaign manager. “The campaign is to label genetically modified food. People have a right to know. That is the simple premise of the initiative.”

California initiatives have many problems. One is that they are never simple. This particular one goes beyond merely labeling requirements.

It contains a provision permitting consumer suits if a product is improperly labeled. That would open farmers and food producers to litigation. As it happens, the initiative’s author, attorney James Wheaton, sues over issues like labeling, but said in an email he hadn’t given thought to whether he might litigate over the new measure, if it passes.

According to Linney, the initiative would prohibit manufacturers from using the word “natural” to describe any genetically engineered food.

However, the wording is ambiguous and could be interpreted to bar companies from calling any product “natural” if it has been subject to “processing such as canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation or milling.” Think about that one. Rice and wheat are milled. Olives must be pressed to make olive oil.

The concept of “Frankenfood” has been scaring some consumers for years, though professor Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of Life & Health Sciences Research Development in the UC Davis Office of Research, points out that humans have been modifying crops for 10,000 years.

Durham wheat, Asian pears, domesticated cattle and many other commodities would not exist without some sort of engineering. Of course, genetic engineering and irradiation are different from cross-breeding of days past. But in very real ways, she said, new techniques are much more controlled.

“This is tested so thoroughly,” Newell-McGloughlin said.

But science and initiative politics have never mixed well.

“It is very easy to sell fear and doubt,” she said.

California doesn’t regulate genetically modified food, figuring “the regulatory authority of GMO rests with the federal government,” said Steve Lyle, spokesman for California Department of Food and Agriculture.

FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said the federal government doesn’t require labeling because there is “no material difference” between genetically modified and unmodified food.

Monsanto, other agricultural corporations and food manufacturers spend millions a year on lobbying and campaigns in Washington and farm states, including California, to fight efforts to limit or label genetically engineered food products. Industry would spend millions to defeat the initiative if it qualifies.

The initiative’s backers report having raised $720,000, with Mercola.com giving $500,000, and a related Minnesota nonprofit giving another $95,000. Proponents will need more to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

My suggestion is that when initiative barkers ask you to sign the petition, keep walking. On occasion, people from Illinois have made fun of us here in La-La Land. A guy from Chicago even called a governor “Moonbeam.” We have our share of nuts, modified and otherwise. We don’t need to import any more.

is it safe to buy generic viagra online

February 27, 2012

Director-General Pascal Lamy, in opening the Fifth Workshop for Heads of Investigating Authorities at the WTO on 27 February 2012, said that unlike in previous global economic downturns, “there had been a significant decline in initiations of new (anti-dumping) investigations, from 213 in 2008 down to 153 in 2011”. This is what he said:

Good morning and welcome to this Fifth Workshop for Heads of Investigating Authorities.

I am very pleased to see so many of you here.  It is indeed a rare occasion to have so much expert knowledge and experience in the field of trade remedies assembled in one room!  I am confident that this assembled expertise will make for very lively and interesting discussions.

We have had good experiences in the past workshops of this kind, where Heads of Investigating Authorities have discussed issues of common interest in an informal setting.  The discussions have been varied, and very open.  The feedback from past participants has been uniformly positive.  I trust this year’s workshop will be no exception, and I hope that on the way back home you will all feel that your trip to Geneva has been worthwhile.

One new element this year is that, in addition to the Heads of active Investigating Authorities from developing members, we have also invited your counterparts from all six developed members with active Investigating Authorities — and all six have accepted the invitation.  We have done this at the explicit request of the attendees of the last workshop.  I wish to express my deep appreciation for their committing the time and resources to be here, particularly in view of the severe budgetary constraints under which we all have to operate these days.

I believe that this mix of Heads of Authorities from developed, as well as developing members, will be mutually beneficial to all participants, and in particular will ensure a rich discussion of the wide scope of topics on the agenda.  And perhaps I am an optimist, but I like to think that by the end of the workshop, you will have identified more that unites Investigating Authorities from both developing and developed members than what divides you.

This has perhaps never been more true than at present, with the world economy and most national economies, developed and developing, still feeling the severe impact of the crisis that started in 2008, and with world trade as well, remaining below its historical peak.  Indeed, although world merchandise exports in 2010 recorded their highest ever annual increase, that is, 14.5 per cent, following the 12 per cent drop in 2009, we witnessed a lower increase last year.

Of course, whatever the temporary fluctuations in trade flows, trade problems and frictions tend to persist, and often are accentuated, during cyclical downturns in economic activity and trade.  As you know, the WTO is playing its role in this regard, among other things, by issuing regular monitoring reports on members’ practices affecting trade, including the use of trade remedies.

You will recall that in previous global economic downturns trade remedy actions have tended to increase.  Many observers therefore expected a repetition of this pattern during the current crisis.  Looking at trade remedies as a whole, however, this has not happened to date.  In fact, concerning anti-dumping, the most frequently used trade remedy instrument, there has been a significant decline in initiations of new investigations, from 213 in 2008 down to 153 in 2011.  As for safeguards, although initiations surged between 2008 and 2009, they have been declining since then.  The trends in countervailing measures are different, as here initiations have followed an upward trend since 2005, with indications that this might continue in the coming months and years.  That said, for the time being, the absolute numbers of countervailing initiations are far below those of anti-dumping.

Although overall trade remedy activity has not increased since the start of the current crisis, the interest in becoming a user of trade remedies continues to grow.  Of the 153 WTO members, close to 100 have put in place the required legal framework to conduct trade remedy investigations, and this number is growing.  Of these 100 members, on average, about half (counting the EU as 27) initiate a trade remedy investigation per year.  Since 1995, more than 70 members have conducted trade remedy investigations.  Thus more and more members are equipped to use trade remedies, meaning that the activity level could increase at any time. This stems from capacity building, an effort in which, as per its mandate, the WTO Secretariat plays an important role.

The WTO Secretariat has been very active in providing members, on request, with hands-on practical training in the conduct of trade remedy investigations.  In fact, all the developing members in this room have benefited from WTO training on trade remedies, the vast majority from dedicated national training workshops.

The Rules Division, which is where the expertise in trade defence instruments lies in the Secretariat, has recently “overhauled” its e-learning materials on trade remedies.  These materials will be further expanded with the objective that the theoretical part of trade remedy training can be done through distance learning, with future workshops to focus on practical exercises only.

We are also developing a computer-based “mock” anti-dumping investigation which will then be used in workshops to complement the e-training.  Trainees will then be able to do a “real” investigation during the course of a workshop.  No more theory during workshops — only action!

The target date for completion of the improvement of these expanded training tools is the end of this year — keep your fingers crossed!  I understand that your views and inputs on these matters will be sought during this workshop.

The Secretariat is, as you can see, trying to address the requests by our developing members to upgrade their capacity in this field. The demand is there, as evidenced by the ACP submission to the Rules Negotiating Group in 2010.

It is for all these reasons that this workshop is both timely and important.  It provides an opportunity, during this very difficult period, for all of you to escape for a short while from the trenches of investigations for some moments of open-ended reflection and discussion with your peers, including on the basis of thematic presentations by experts.  I hope and believe that these very informal discussions of issues of common interest will help all of you to enhance your understanding of one another’s systems, to identify common ground, and to forge new professional contacts and communication channels.  I thus encourage all of you to take full advantage of the workshop by sharing your own experiences and learning from the experiences of others.

With that, I wish all of you the best for a very fruitful and successful workshop.

Thank you.

February 24, 2012

By Gregor Heard

THERE was all the predictable posturing and spin from both sides of the genetically modified (GM) crops debate as they attempted to use the recent International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) annual report as evidence to support their claims.

Pro-biotech groups, including ISAAA, said the report showed global uptake of GM crops was continuing at an unprecedented rate.

However, anti-GM groups accused ISAAA of “fudging” its figures and said the figures had been massaged to show an increase in what was actually a stagnating market share.

The ISAAA report said an additional 12 million hectares of GM crops were grown in 2011, a growth rate of 8 per cent on 2010.

Report author Clive James said this was testimony to the increased confidence in biotech crops.

He said there was large scale uptake in developing countries in particular.

Locally, however, groups contested the ISAAA claims GM crop acreage was expanding.

“Even on ISAAA’s inflated industry-generated data, GM crops were grown on just 3.276pc (160m ha) of the world’s 4,883,697,600ha of agricultural land last year,” said Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps.

He said GM research was stalling as seed companies searched for new traits.

“ISAAA again claims GM crops will cope better in climate change with abiotic stresses (drought and salt tolerant) and biotic stresses (weed, pest and disease resistant, but these complex traits rely on the interaction of many genes while GM techniques can only be used to cut and paste single genes.

“Despite 30 years and $45 billion poured into GM, none of these more complex GM traits exist and the GM industry is stalled.”

He also said acreage was inflated by the practice of counting herbicide tolerant and insecticide tolerant hectares separately, even though many varieties have a bundle of both traits.

However, Mr James said the technology was being accepted by more and more producers in Latin America, Asia and South Africa, saying that developing countries now produce around 50pc of all the biotech crops grown around the globe.

Meanwhile, GrainGrowers hit out at Greenpeace suggestions that its is it safe to buy generic viagra online report showed there was international rejection of GM wheat.

Paula Fitzgerald, general manager – industry development, said the survey data had been misinterpreted.

“GrainGrowers surveyed customers in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and one of the many questions sought to gain initial thoughts on GM wheat,” Ms Fitzgerald said.

“GM wheat is not grown commercially in the world and is six to 10 years away from commercialisation, so claims by Greenpeace that countries are rejecting GM wheat are false, as you can’t reject something that doesn’t exist.”

She said the Australian grain industry was committed to researching the possibility of GM wheat.

“Greenpeace can create whatever fanciful narratives it pleases. We prefer the real world and its real challenges.

“The fact is Australian food producers need access to tools and new plant varieties to deliver a viable, efficient and sustainable grain supply for vital wheat food products.”

Meanwhile, GrainGrowers hit out at Greenpeace suggestions that its is it safe to buy generic viagra online report showed there was international rejection of GM wheat.

Paula Fitzgerald, general manager – industry development, said the survey data had been misinterpreted.

“GrainGrowers surveyed customers in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and one of the many questions sought to gain initial thoughts on GM wheat,” Ms Fitzgerald said.

“GM wheat is not grown commercially in the world and is six to 10 years away from commercialisation, so claims by Greenpeace that countries are rejecting GM wheat are false, as you can’t reject something that doesn’t exist.”

She said the Australian grain industry was committed to researching the possibility of GM wheat.

“Greenpeace can create whatever fanciful narratives it pleases. We prefer the real world and its real challenges.

“The fact is Australian food producers need access to tools and new plant varieties to deliver a viable, efficient and sustainable grain supply for vital wheat food products.”

February 24, 2012

By Jack Kaskey

(Updates with comment from analyst in fifth paragraph.)

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) — Seed companies including Monsanto Co., the world’s largest, will get speedier regulatory reviews of their genetically modified crops under forthcoming rule changes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.

The goal is to cut by half the time needed to approve biotech crops from the current average of three years, Michael Gregoire, a USDA deputy administrator, said today in a telephone interview. The changes will take effect when they’re published in the Federal Register, probably in March, he said.

Approvals that took six months in the 1990s have lengthened because of increased public interest, more legal challenges and the advent of national organic food standards, Gregoire said. U.S. farmers worry they may be disadvantaged as countries such as Brazil approve new technologies faster, said Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association.

“It is a concern from a competition standpoint,” Censky said in a telephone interview.

Faster approvals also benefit seed developers by allowing them to profit from new products sooner, Jeff Windau, a St. Louis-based analyst at Edward Jones & Co., said in a telephone interview. The financial benefit is difficult to estimate until the new rules are in place, he said.

“If you can reduce the approval time, you get sales that much faster,” said Windau, who rates Monsanto “hold” and DuPont Co. “buy.” “It could be significant for the companies like Monsanto and DuPont.”

Faster Approvals

One way the USDA plans to speed up approvals is by inviting public comments as soon as seed developers such as Monsanto file a complete petition for deregulation of a biotech crop, rather than waiting until the end of the review, Gregoire said. That will allow regulators at the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, to address any concerns as they conduct their environmental analysis and risk assessment, he said.

“We can improve the quality of decisions by providing for this earlier public input in the process,” Gregoire said. “We are not sacrificing quality at all.”

Congress is helping to speed crop reviews by increasing APHIS’s budget for biotech regulation to a record $18 million this year, from $13 million in 2011, Gregoire said.

The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based non-profit group that has successfully challenged approvals of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar-beet and alfalfa crops, said the rule change is aimed at preventing opponents of modified crops from voicing criticism of the agency’s methods.

Working the System

“They are trying to work the system so they can dismiss public comments more quickly and easily in order to speed things up,” Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the group, said in a telephone interview. “It’s a rubber-stamp system. A real regulatory system will occasionally reject something.”

Under the rule changes, new versions of existing crop technologies, such as corn that produces a naturally occurring pesticide, would undergo a review lasting about 13 months, Gregoire said. That would be accomplished by making the agency’s determination final after a 30-day public review period, he said.

For new technologies, such as a crops engineered to tolerate a new herbicide, there will be a second comment period after the agency makes its preliminary decision, extending the duration of the review to about 16 months, he said.

Which of these two regulatory routes is taken for each of the 22 biotech crops currently under review will be announced along with the publication of the rule change, Gregoire said.

–Editors: Jasmina Kelemen, Simon Casey

To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in Houston at jkaskey@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Simon Casey at scasey4@bloomberg.net

February 24, 2012

Norfolk MP George Freeman has today called for a new debate on GM, saying UK drought and global development in food make it essential that the European Union changes its opposition to Agricultural Science and GM, so that Europe and the UK can help pioneer the agricultural innovation the world is crying out for.

With the world’s population set to rise to 9 billion in our lifetimes, our generation faces a historic challenge of sustainability: to double global food supply using less water, energy and chemical inputs, and using half as much land. The challenge was spelt out in no uncertain terms in the recent Foresight Report by the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, who called for a new agricultural revolution of ’sustainable intensification’.

’As Britain looks for ways to build a sustainable, export led economic recovery, and define a new role in the rapidly emerging global economy, the’application of our world class expertise in agriculture, nutrition and plant science to support the fast growing markets in the developing world is a major opportunity we should seize.’

The global market for agricultural biotechnology is valued at over ’90 billion and growing at 10-15 per cent annually. With developing nations such as the USA, China, Brazil and Argentina rapidly investing in the sector it would be madness for us to stand aside. Access to all available and innovation will be essential if Europe’s farmers are to remain internationally competitive and play their part in ensuring global food production keeps pace with demand.
’
This is NOT about a wholesale adoption of GM in the UK food chain. Consumers should be free to choose what they eat, and helped to make well informed choices based on excellent science based’regulation and labeling.’BUT it would be irresponsible for us to turn our back against the enormous environmental and developmental’benefits of GM and other agricultural innovation, at a time when the planet desperately needs these breakthroughs for sustainable development.’

February 22, 2012

Agriculture needed new technologies and innovations as well as bold leadership as developing nations look towards an era of climate smart agriculture.

This would meet the needs of the huge number of people that suffer from poverty in rural areas across the globe.

These were the views shared by several leaders and delegates at the opening of the International Fund for Agricultural Development’s (IFAD) 35th Governing Council in Rome, Italy on Wednesday.

Experts from IFAD, a specialised agency of the United Nations, said that there was a satisfactory degree of agricultural success in developing nations but much still needed to be done as small holder farmers remained vulnerable to forces of climate change, lack of market access and under investment.

Out of a global population of about seven billion, more than one billion people remained under nourished, yet there is enough arable land to feed the entire world population, reports show.

Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, said it was evident that food production was not keeping up with the increase of the world’s population, and many of those affected were people from lower income countries in the developing world.

He pointed out that Rwanda had a small-holder base agricultural sector in a fragile environment that was susceptible to climate change. With these issues, it was time to try what had not been done and look to other methods that worked to suite small farmers.

He was also quick to point out that with this approach, agricultural output for small holder farmers in Rwanda had improved which saw small farmers increase their income by about five percent.

“One million Rwandans are moved beyond the poverty line…This was achieved in fragile conditions as the productivity of small holder farmers was increased,” he said.

Kagame said cooperation was critical if agriculture were to grow. Ifad had played a critical role in assisting the country with tea and coffee exports.

The agricultural sector was the main source of livelihood that ensured a steady food supply for the majority of the population in Rwanda.

“Rwanda’s arable land population, is growing and we need to protect our food security,” he said.

Kagame said the country had tripled maize and doubled what production between 2007 and 2010.

“A lot remains to be done. We cannot talk of sustainable production if we rely on rain fed agriculture. We need to intensify irrigation while making water resources better. Farmers need fertilisers and seeds. We need to invest in new technology to ensure production of staple foods,” explained.

Kanayo Nwanze, president of Ifad, said in his key note address to delegates agriculture needed to reflect the impacts of environmental degradation in order to develop ground breaking innovations that would help channel agricultural finance to smaller countries.

Nwanze said the organisation had surpassed its efficiency target for aid. He called for farmers to be recognised as entrepreneurs where they can have access to means that would enable them to transform their operations. The organisation would also expand its partnership with the private sector and would expand its presence in fragile states, added. – Ayanda Mdluli

February 22, 2012

By Bruce Chassy and Henry I. Miller

Chemistry Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir related in a landmark 1953 speech his visit to the laboratory of J.B. Rhine at Duke University, where Rhine was claiming results of ESP experiments that could not be predicted by chance, and which he ascribed to psychic phenomena. Langmuir discovered that Rhine was only selectively counting the data in his experiments, omitting the results from those he believed were guessing in order to humiliate him.

The evidence? Rhine felt that some of the scores were too low to have occurred by chance, and that it would, therefore, actually be misleading to include them.

Langmuir dubbed this deviation from the principles of the scientific method “pathological science,” the “science of things that aren’t so.”

Virtually all scientists would agree that Rhine’s methodology crosses the line of incompetence and sloppiness and falls into the category of scientific misconduct, but that line is blurred today by some scientists whose research reflects an obvious political agenda. Often, that agenda is intractable opposition to and obstruction of whatever research, product or technology they happen to dislike.

A current example of a scientist who is less guilty of actually fudging data to get the desired answer than of performing poorly designed experiments and grossly misrepresenting the results is the French biologist Gilles-Eric Séralini, who has made a specialty of poorly designed, irrelevant, uninterpretable (but over-interpreted) experiments intended to demonstrate harm from genetically engineered (also known as “genetically modified,” or GM) plants in various highly contrived scenarios.

His latest exercise in science-for-propaganda is an article that purports to show toxic effects of two toxins from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), that have been introduced into many varieties of corn, soybean and cotton to enhance insect-resistance. (It is noteworthy that spores and purified proteins produced by Bt have been used to control insect pests since the 1920s; considered safe except to susceptible insects, various strains and formulations of Bt are readily available to home gardeners.) Séralini and his collaborators examined the effects of two Bt toxins (in the presence and absence of the herbicide Roundup) in vitro on a line of cultured embryonic kidney cells. They looked for – and found — effects on three biomarkers of “cell death” – namely, changes in the levels of several enzymes.

There are a number of fundamental flaws in Séralini’s experiment.

First, because testing in a petri dish is poorly predictive of effects on an intact animal in the real world, it is not a substitute for testing in whole animals. Many chemicals and proteins that we consume routinely and uneventfully would be toxic if applied directly to naked cells. So that absorption and distribution in the body are taken into account, toxicological testing should be performed in a way that resembles the anticipated exposure(s) of the intact organism in the real world.

Second, almost every chemical tested is toxic to isolated, naked, literally defenseless cells in petri dishes. An elevated concentration of table salt, for example, causes plated cells to wither and die; many are likewise sensitive to small changes in pH. This situation is very different from an intact, living organism: Animals have evolved elaborate defenses against the millions of chemicals present in the environment that can harm cells. The first line of defense is as simple as their skin, and the cells that line the gastrointestinal tract constitute a similar barrier. Bt proteins cannot penetrate those cells, so other cells and organs in intact animals are not exposed to Bt proteins. This fact — which Séralini conveniently ignores — has been known for decades.

Third, Séralini and his fellow travelers ignore the ancient adage that the dose makes the makes the poison. It has been known since Paracelsus made the observation in the 16th century that all things can be poisonous but the dose determines whether or not they are harmful. Without expressing it in those terms, we all know it to be true for substances as disparate as carbon monoxide and Tylenol.

Séralini’s claim that in his experiments the cultured cells were exposed to agriculturally relevant doses of Roundup, a brand name of the ubiquitous herbicide glyphosate, is disingenuous. The food products produced from widely cultivated, herbicide–tolerant, genetically engineered soybeans and corn contain only minute amounts of Roundup that are several orders of magnitude lower than those used by Séralini in his experiments. Roundup itself is about as toxic as baking soda. Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that Bt protein actually protected exposed cells from damage by Roundup. But of course in the real world isolated cells would never be exposed to either substance.

Fourth, Séralini’s results are trumped by the well-known findings from actual animal feeding experiments: Bt proteins do not harm animals at doses a million times higher than humans would encounter in their diets. Numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles have established that Bt proteins are non-toxic to animals or humans. Bt proteins have narrow biological specificity and affect only a few species of closely related insects but have no effect on other insects or higher organisms. These facts alone make Séralini’s experiment irrelevant.

Finally, toxicologists evaluate potential harmful effects based on dose and the levels and frequency of exposure. In the United States, the vast majority of the corn harvested goes to animal feed and biofuel; less than 2% of the total corn harvest is used to make corn meal based products (chips, meal, etc). In many of these products the corn meal is processed in a way that destroys Bt proteins.

In any case, baking or frying would denature the Bt proteins, and the other food uses are mostly highly purified starches and oils which would have no Bt content. The critical point is that the anticipated human exposure to active Bt proteins is nil. Even if small amounts did survive processing and were consumed in active form, they would be denatured by acid and digested in the gut. And finally, even if for some reason they remained undigested, they would not be absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract’s epithelial cells.

Such flagrantly flawed, irrelevant experiments will never make inroads in the scientific community, but their existence is important nevertheless because their spurious findings are picked up and repeated again and again by anti-biotechnology activists.

Sometimes they even find their way into the mainstream media, and therein lies the danger. It distorts public opinion via the phenomenon of “information cascade.” This is the way in which incorrect ideas gain acceptance by being repeatedly parroted until they are accepted as true even in the absence of persuasive evidence.

Many misconceptions about certain disciplines, technologies, or products—such as chemicals, nuclear power, and genetic engineering—arise from the constant drumbeat of dubious accusations from advocacy groups, politicians, and the media. The promotion of technophobia has become a major industry in the United States and Europe.

Another factor that contributes to misapprehensions among the public is what has been dubbed “rational ignorance,” which comes into play when the cost of sufficiently informing oneself about an issue to make an informed decision on it outweighs any potential benefit one could reasonably expect from that decision.

For example, citizens occupied with the concerns of daily living—families, jobs, health—may not consider it to be cost-effective to study the potential risks and benefits of nuclear power plants or of plasticizers in children’s toys. This is unfortunate because free speech and democratic processes can only serve society when citizens are well enough informed to be able to reject pseudoscientific claims like Séralini’s and those of other propagandists and abusers of science.

In free societies propagandists like Séralini can commit misdemeanors or even misconduct without fear of retribution. To hold those who would abuse science accountable, other scientists must expose deceptions, and journals must perform rigorous, conscientious peer-review of articles (more rigorous and conscientious, certainly, than was done on Séralini’s article).

is it safe to buy generic viagra online