Subject: Do you eat bread? herbicide tolerant wheat NOT DONE YET
de
- information consolidated & organized with TABLE OF
CONTENTS. - if you know people in the "FOOD SECURITY" networks, they will
be interested. Please pass on. - I am advising people to disregard
deadline for input (Jan 7) because it is abuse-of-process. - it is
EXTREMELY important that we win this battle. It has
many implications.
Some people are new to the information. I
don't expect them to participate if they don't have solid evidence. The
CONTENTS are provided so you can be selective in your
reading.
----------------------------------------------
Yummy!
More of your bread will be designed to be resistant to chemicals if the
chemical company BASF has its way.
CONTENTS 7 ITEMS
(1) DO
YOU EAT BREAD?
(1a) INTRODUCTION (1b) DEADLINE (1c)
ISSUES (1d) PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO (1e) CFIA NOTICE, "ACCEPTING
COMMENTS" (CFIA is Cdn Food Inspection Agency) (1f) SHORT HISTORY OF BATTLE,
MONSANTO'S RR WHEAT (1g) BASF IS SMARTER THAN MONSANTO (1h) FROM A
FARMER, WHAT IS CLEARFIELD WHEAT, IMPLICATIONS FOR FARMER (1i) WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR LICENSING? (1j) ** LETTER TO FRANCOIS GUIMONT, PRESIDENT OF
THE CFIA (contains ALL the arguments!) (1k) CHARADE OF
TRANSPARENCY (1l) HEALTH CANADA - PMRA AND CFIA, SISTER ORGANIZATIONS (1m)
RED HERRING ARGUMENT, MUTAGENESIS (1n) DOCUMENTARY, THE FUTURE OF FOOD, STORY
OF THE CFIA (1o) RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE, SASKATOON STAR PHOENIX (1p) CANADA
HOSTS INTERN'L CONVENTION BIO DIVERSITY,DENIES ENTRY- THE DR. TEWOLDE
AFFAIR
(2) EXTENT TO WHICH HERBICIDE TOLERANT WHEAT IS ALREADY "OUT
THERE" (3) TO REGISTER YOUR INPUT TO THE GOVERNMENT (4) 298
WORD LETTER-TO-EDITOR (5) WHY WE MUST WIN, SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS
BATTLE (6) CORPORATE PROFILE BASF (7) ANCIENT GENETIC TRICKS
SHAPE UP
WHEAT
==========================================
(1) DO YOU
EAT BREAD?
(1a) INTRODUCTION
Yummy! More of your bread will
be designed to be resistant to chemicals if the chemical company BASF has its
way.
Herbicide tolerant wheat is back on. If it goes thru there
will be more agricultural chemicals in the environment, run-off into water
supply, etc. all aside from question of the criteria being used to develop
our food supply (that it be resistant to chemical
applications).
People should be aware. Takes 1 minute to register
opposition, see #3 TO REGISTER YOUR INPUT TO THE GOVERNMENT. The
Government is inviting comment! You may have colleagues who will be
interested. The medical profession will be guaranteed escalating
numbers of diseased patients if this is allowed to progress.
(1b)
DEADLINE
Given (#2) the EXTENT TO WHICH HERBICIDE TOLERANT WHEAT IS
ALREADY "OUT THERE" (confirmed by the newspaper report (#1o) RECENT MEDIA
COVERAGE, SASKATOON STAR PHOENIX) you might say the public consultation
is meaningless. But it's also an opportunity: first to let more
people know what's going on and second, to halt what's going on. There
are enough people in "the networks" to bring about change. (It's also a
healthy way to deal with anger!!!)
The deadline (Jan 7) for input to
the Govt can be ignored. They intentionally schedule these things over
the Christmas holidays (did the same thing to us last year; the shouts
of "foul play" obviously fell on deaf ears). Also, herbicide tolerant wheat
has been licensed for some time. If they so blatantly engage in
abuse-of-process, we will ignore the deadline. Give your feedback to
the Govt. See #3, "TO REGISTER YOUR INPUT TO THE
GOVERNMENT".
----------------------------------------
(1c)
ISSUES
- people used to be able to eat wheat products without
allergic reactions. This is no longer true. Seeds have been developed
according to criteria that do not take into full account the impacts on
health.
- unequivocally, seeds that are developed to be resistant
to chemicals bring about a substantial increase in the amount of chemicals in
the environment. There are more acres of wheat in Canada than any other
crop. To make this crop tolerant of chemical applications will lead to a
DRAMATIC increase in the use of, not only more chemicals, but necessarily
MORE TOXIC chemicals. Using Roundup Resistant Canola as example,
glyphosate applications now have to be followed up by applications of
2,4D. The glyphosate-resistant plants become weeds. We are
knowingly setting up a vicious circle of increased chemical use, of ever more
toxic chemicals.
- IN WHOSE INTERESTS? Wheat is a basic in
our food system. To develop wheat by the criterion that it be resistant
to chemicals is to ignore the public interest in favour of, in this case, the
chemical company BASF.
- the OWNERSHIP of seeds. Seeds are
part of the commons. These companies are attempting to "own" part of
the commons, a very dangerous
precedent.
----------------------------------------
(1d) PLEASE
FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO
- anyone who makes cakes or cookies or pie or
bread - anyone who owns a bread maker -
nutritionists - people who suffer from celiac disease (gluten
intolerance), they might have a word to say - anyone who uses flour
or who buys bread - bakeries and flour mills and restaurants -
Tim Horton Donut owners and workers - farmers and farm
organizations - anyone who uses wheat in any way - who
else?
-------------------------------------------
(1e) CFIA
NOTICE, "ACCEPTING COMMENTS"
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Accepting
Comments on Submission for Approval and Release of Herbicide Tolerant
Wheat
In 2003-04 we and others
each put months of volunteer time into the battle to stop the introduction of
herbicide-tolerant wheat (Monsanto's roundup resistant (RR)wheat).
Thousands of people and many organizations from Canada and other countries
joined hands in the effort. The Government of Canada was/is a
joint-developer with Monsanto of seeds developed to be resistant to
chemicals. Under the storm of protest, Monsanto announced that it was
withdrawing its application for licensing. (Licensing is through
the CFIA, part of Agriculture Canada.) The Government didn't have to take
a stand. (It is conceivable that the Govt had a role in persuading
its partner to withdraw the application.)
Here it is back again, this
time from the chemical company
BASF.
------------------------------------------
(1g) BASF IS
SMARTER THAN MONSANTO
BASF is a chemical company that develops
seeds. BASF is smarter than Monsanto. Everyone knows Monsanto,
its product "Roundup", its transgenic RR Wheat, attempted ownership of seed,
court case against Percy Schmeiser, attempted bribery of Health Canada
officials over bovine growth hormone, $700 million dollar fine in Alabama
over its (knowingly) poisoning of a community, etc.
BASF keeps its
name and product names separated one from the other. It effectively
avoids publicity. See #5, "CORPORATE
PROFILE".
(1h)
FROM A FARMER, WHAT IS CLEARFIELD WHEAT, IMPLICATIONS FOR FARMER
Brent
writes: "BASF Clearfield wheat is herbicide tolerant to the
chemical Odyssey [imazamox and imazethapyr]. A concoction that sounds good
enough to drink .Haha. Aside from the poison, the public issue of GMO, the
issue for me as a farmer and a pulse crop grower is that we use this
chemical effectivly on a variety of pulse crops. We do not need wheat weeds
resistant to it showing up in our pulse
fields."
François Guimont (613 225-2342) is
President of the CFIA, (Cdn Food Inspection Agency) responsible for the
licensing of crops that are the basis of our food supply. The CFIA is
part of Agriculture Canada.
Stephen Yarrow, director of CFIA's plant
bio-safety office is quoted in the newspaper article (#1o) "RECENT
MEDIA...". He is the same person I had a lengthy conversation with, in
opposition to this BASF
wheat.
---------------------------------------------
(1j) **
LETTER TO FRANCOIS GUIMONT, PRESIDENT OF THE CFIA (contains ALL
the arguments!)
(INSERT: I have modified
somewhat, a slight improvement to eliminate some of the duplication in
original letter.)
By the thousands, Canadians have told you that we do
not want our food supply developed by the criterion that it be resistant to
chemicals. Our food supply is to be developed according to the
criterion: - is the seed more nutritious than other varieties (of
wheat, in this example)? Does it make a positive contribution to the
nutritional value of our food supply?
We fought for months and months
to put a stop to herbicide-resistant wheat developed jointly by Monsanto and
the Government of Canada. Now here it is back again, only this time
from BASF.
The purpose of the Government and its Legislation is to defend
THE COMMONS.
Seeds are an essential part of the commons; they form the
basis of our food supply. The CRITERIA NOT USED are more important than the
CRITERIA CURRENTLY IN USE in the development of our food supply. It is
the RESPONSIBILITY of ANYONE who is tampering with the food supply (seeds or
fish) to use appropriate selection criteria.
You have 4 issues to
address: - GOVERNANCE. In whose interest are these undertakings?
-
HEALTH. Our food supply. Health is dependent upon food supply. It is
well documented that the nutritional value of food has significantly
declined over the last 50 years. That does not bode well for public
health. There is a connection between our food supply, escalating disease
rates, allergy rates (health) and medicare costs. Before any seed or
fish is released into the environment or licensed for use: is the nutritional
value superior to that of hallmark original varieties? If the seed (food)
does not make an improved positive contribution to the value of the food,
therefore to the health of the citizens, it will not be licensed for use.
NUTRITIONAL VALUE, TASTE: Food that contributes to the healthfulness of the
citizens must be appetizing, or it will be shunned in spite of its nutritive
value. SO: What is the taste performance of the proposed seed: it must at
least be as tasty as hallmark original varieties.
- ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES: will it perform like an "introduced or invader species" such as
wild oats, purple loosestrife or zebra mussels? If so, it will not be
licensed. Anyone who releases such organisms into the environment must pay
the "external costs" of eradication. Introduced species do not have
enemies. They proliferate and become weeds (or exterminators of indigenous
populations). Common sense, science and experience ALL reinforce the
fact that crops engineered to be resistant to chemicals bring about an
increase in the use of chemicals. Who pays the costs? Do you know
how many millions and millions of dollars are spent, year after year, to try
and control wild oats (an introduced species)? Do YOU pay for
it?
Farmers now apply a round of glyphosate to kill the plants they don't
want, and then turn around and apply 2-4D to kill the plants that are
resistant to the glyphosate. We have 10 years of experience with RR canola
which is now a weed growing in shelter-belts, gardens and in other unwanted
places. Roundup won't kill it. You, the CFIA, have no credibility
here.
- OWNERSHIP OF LIFE FORMS. The Patent Act was never meant to
apply to life forms. It was intended to cover mechanical devices.
In at least 4 different places in the Schmeiser decision the Supreme Court of
Canada told the Government that the legislation had to be changed. Has
that been done? The earlier "Harvard Mouse" decision also pointed out to the
Government that the Patent Act required an update. Has it been
done? Have YOU, François Guimont, done anything to insist that the
Patent Act be changed? Whose interests do you
serve?
Transnational corporate interests more and more determine the
food that is grown. They do not develop seed using the selection criteria of
nutritional value. And they attempt to appropriate that which belongs
to the commons. You, the CFIA, are party to the attempted
appropriation.
The Government almost shut down a whole industry (cattle)
when it was suspected that just ONE INDIVIDUAL's food production might be
injurious to the public good (health). What do you do when it is
suspected that crops developed with the criterion that they be resistant to
chemicals, crops that serve a corporate interest, might not be in the public
interest?
The health of the population, and therefore medicare costs, are
dependent upon the nutritional value of our food supply.
According to
a Globe and Mail report, the nutrition found in fruits, vegetables, and other
food crops has declined significantly since the 1950's. That is YOUR
responsibility.
CRITERIA USED: The licensing process for new varieties
of wheat, barley, oats, etc. uses criteria such as disease resistance, yield,
and now, resistance to chemical applications.
CRITERIA NOT USED:
nutritional value, taste, impact on environment, contribution to the common
good.
Plant Breeders do not have Rights. They have
RESPONSIBILITIES.
Regarding the COMMON GOOD: WHOSE INTERESTS ARE YOU
SERVING? THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT. Visionaries implemented a
seed development process in Canada which used public money for the common
good (e.g. Agriculture Canada Research Stations and scientists). They
understood that allowing inferior seed from producers to enter the food
production system undermines the value of the crop for citizens
collectively.
They understood that: ~ the goals of the individual or
corporation (minimize costs, maximize revenues) can be at odds with the
interests of the community, ~ use of inferior seed by some individuals
promotes use of inferior seed by everyone because those with higher costs
will be driven out of production if they don't adopt the same lowest-cost
production. (The common good (health) and the environment are the
losers.) ~ the role of Government is to serve and protect the public
interest. Historically, Agriculture Canada did that well, up until the 1980's
when Government POLICY changed ("public-private partnerships").
TODAY,
the Government is WRONG in its understanding of its role. If it cannot be
demonstrated that the society at large will benefit from the seed, then it
must not be licensed. (The very name of the Act - PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS -
states a bad situation, a serious misunderstanding.)
Canada has a long
history of exemplary seed development based on community interest. The
evidence is that we HAVE floundered by succumbing to private, commercial,
interest-based seed selection criteria.
From John Kenneth Galbraith's
"The Economics of Innocent Fraud - Truth for our Time", published in 2004 :
"... As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector,
it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. ...One
obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much
present regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence
extends to the regulators. . Needed is independent, honest, professionally
competent regulation ... This last must be recognized and countered. There is
no alternative to effective supervision. ."
Tax-payers provide
salaries for Government employees to perform work that is in the public
interest. ANY Government employee whose work is in collaboration with an
industry, ESPECIALLY if the employee's official work is related to the
regulation of that industry, MUST resign their Government position.
I
am very angry that I and others must expend so much time and energy to
try and force people to do their job.
I left 2 messages for François Guimont, the President of the
CFIA, 613 225-2342, requesting a phone call from him and eventually had a
lengthy conversation with one of his officials, Stephen Yarrow, who is
quoted in the media coverage near bottom of this email.
The CFIA
web-site says: "Currently, the CFIA and Health Canada post decision
documents on the Internet after a product has been approved. They have not
previously posted information about products that are under review, as will
be the case in this pilot project."
Two of our members have
investigated the CFIA web-site and advise that the licensing of these seeds
is further advanced than we know. See #2 "EXTENT TO WHICH ..." and also
#1o, "RECENT MEDIA". Which makes this public consultation into a
sham. Never mind. USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM MORE PEOPLE
ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF SOME GOVERNMENT IN CANADA.
This application
from BASF is a "pilot project" with regard to PROCESS.
A point I did not
make in my letter to the CFIA, but which is important: the idea that the
Government can achieve "transparency" by posting each application on a
web-site as it comes up, implies that citizens have nothing to do but sit and
watch the Government web-site and then launch a campaign every time it steps
out of line. This is not transparency, but policing by citizens.
If the licensing follows the right principles, and if actions are principled,
citizens might gain some confidence in the system of regulation and
governance. If the regulations and laws are out-of-date (the
Patent Act), they are the source of the problem and need to be changed.
That things are being done "according to the law" is not an excuse.
(See my letter to François.)
This charade of "transparency" will be an
attempt to deal with all the flack heaped upon the Government in the past
over round-up resistant(RR) wheat and other related issues such as Bill C-27,
Plant Breeders' Rights Act, C-28 Interim Marketing Authorizations, the
Whistle-blowers Legislation, etc. The charade needs to be challenged
for what it is - it is not transparency.
(Aside: People in our network
have been involved in the "Smart Regulations" "Government Directive on
Regulating" (GDR). You can see the connection: here the CFIA is running
a "pilot project" to be "transparent". The GDR is in precisely the same
vein - an attempt to deal with all the flack directed at the
Government. We have used this BASF application as input to the GDR as
part of the illustration of growing non-compliance with the laws
and regulations in Canada and why that is happening. Please ask me if
you would like a copy of our correspondence with the Privy Council Office
(PCO) and Alex Himelfarb, head of the PCO about "Smart
Regulations".)
-------------------
(1l) HEALTH CANADA - PMRA AND
CFIA, SISTER ORGANIZATIONS
Curiously, the text reads "the CFIA and Health
Canada". One interpretation of the Government text is that the
reference to "Health" is an effort to convey the impression that Health is a
priority.
The CFIA is part of AGRICULTURE Canada. The CFIA licenses
the seeds that are tolerant to the herbicides licensed by HEALTH Canada
through the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency). The "clients" of
both agencies are the same. People familiar with the pesticide debate
know that the Auditor General's Dept has stated emphatically in 4 consecutive
reports starting in 1988 that the PMRA is not getting the job done.
From experience we know that conflicts-of-interest abound between the PMRA
and the chemical industry it is supposed to regulate. It sees the
industry as its "clients". The CFIA and the PMRA are very much sister
organizations; both view the industry they are supposed to regulate as
"clients". The statement "The CFIA and Health Canada ..." can be
interpreted in this context.
(1m) RED HERRING ARGUMENT,
MUTAGENESIS
It has been pointed out that this licensing application is
not about "transgenics" or "GMO's" as in the case of Monsanto's RR
Wheat. BASF uses a different process called "mutagenesis" to develop
its herbicide-tolerant wheat. This is a red herring argument which can
be avoided by focussing on the CRITERIA being used to "develop" our food
supply - see the letter to François. The criterion is resistance to
chemicals; nutritional value is an after thought.
Mutagenesis is also
addressed in the newspaper article, #1o "RECENT MEDIA..."
.
-------------------------------------
(1n) DOCUMENTARY, THE
FUTURE OF FOOD, STORY OF THE CFIA
If you do not know the story of the
CFIA, it is well enough told in the movie THE FUTURE OF FOOD, an American
movie with Canadian content. What is described about the U.S. situation
is true of the Canadian. For more information about the film: http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
"Already
playing to packed houses in the U.S., this award-winning documentary offers
an in-depth investigation into the alarming changes happening in the
corporate-controlled food system. With beautiful and haunting images, it
reveals the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically
engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past
decade. Released in the States in September, THE FUTURE OF FOOD opened in
Calgary on Nov. 18th, Vancouver on December 1 with a special benefit
screening in Saskatoon on December 2.""THE FUTURE OF FOOD has inspired food
and farming communities all over the world," says Producer-Director Garcia.
"We are very pleased that audiences across Canada will have the opportunity
to see the film and educate themselves about what is happening to agriculture
today.") --------------------------------
(1o) RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE,
SASKATOON STAR PHOENIX
Modified wheat taking root By Margaret
Munro CanWest News Service
Saskatchewan farmer Michael Kirk has a
virtually invincible variety of wheat stashed in his bins ready for planting
in spring.
The wheat, known by the name CDC Imagine, stands straight even
in high winds and unlike many varieties is not prone to losing its seeds in
bad weather, says Kirk.
But what really sets it apart is a gene
mutation. CDC Imagine has been genetically altered so it keeps growing when
sprayed with herbicides that normally make wheat shrivel and die. It's a
distinction that makes CDC Imagine the first herbicide tolerant wheat in
Canada.
Perhaps even more remarkable, this high-tech wheat has avoided
the wrath of farmers, environmentalists, consumers and marketers who drove
Monsanto's herbicide tolerant wheat out of Canada in 2004. The opposition was
based on fears about possible human health hazards, increased weed resistance
and fears of corporate control over important crops.
CDC Imagine has
taken root on the Prairies with little protest. More than 200,000 acres of
the wheat were grown in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in 2005. And BASF
Canada, which produces CDC Imagine, has now applied to the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency for permission to grow three more types of herbicide
tolerant wheat.
They all have the same "novel trait," says Stephen
Yarrow, director of CFIA's plant bio-safety office. But protests are "not
even on the radar screen," he says.
The reason is that BASF - the
world's largest chemical company, based in Germany - created its wheat using
a gene-altering process called mutagenesis, which is much more palatable to
foreign markets and the Canadian Wheat Board than Monsanto's genetically
modified creation.
Genetically modified plants have genes inserted or
engineered into them that have been borrowed from other organisms, such as
microbes, animals or other plants. Monsanto engineered herbicide tolerance
into its wheat using a soil bacterium.
Endorsed by Wheat
Board
Mutagenesis entails blasting seeds or cells with radiation or
bathing them in chemicals to cause mutations in a plant's existing genes.
Plant breeders have used the process for decades to create new flower colours
or better barley for beer making. BASF used chemicals to create the mutation
that protects CDC Imagine from herbicides.
Some say it doesn't really
matter whether the plants are created through genetic engineering and
mutagenesis. "It does seem to be splitting hairs," Kirk said in an interview
from his farm in Climax.
"The risks to the environment are exactly the
same," Yarrow says.
But the distinction has given BASF free rein to
market CDC Imagine as "the first and only non-genetically modified" herbicide
tolerant wheat in Canada.
The wheat has been embraced by the Canadian
Wheat Board, which led the protests against Monsanto wheat out of a fear the
GM wheat might end up co-mingling or contaminating regular wheat, and prompt
offshore customers to boycott all Canadian wheat.
"We have no concern
with the BASF wheat, because it's not GM," says Maureen Fitzhenry, media
relations manager at the Canadian Wheat Board.
To create herbicide
tolerant wheat, BASF scientists bathe seeds in a chemical that induces change
in gene sequences, says Kent Jennings, manager of biotechnology and
toxicology at BASF Canada. They then grow the wheat and spray it with
herbicide. The survivors have the desired mutation. A single genetic change
or mutation is all it takes to create imidazolinone tolerance, says Jennings,
likening it to a single typo in a sentence. "It's the smallest genetic change
you could possibly get," he says. The typo prevents the herbicide from
binding to an enzyme in the wheat. "It's a nice slick system," says Kirk, who
grew 720 acres of CDC Imagine last
summer.
--------------------------
(1p) CANADA HOSTS INTERN'L
CONVENTION BIO DIVERSITY, DENIES ENTRY - THE DR. TEWOLDE
AFFAIR
Excerpt from submission to Privy Council Office (PCO), General
Directive on Regulating (GDR), part of SMART REGULATIONS:
In
NON-COMPLIANCE, THE ROLE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE: "How can it
be that CANADA denied entry to scientists from developing countries to
the Biosafety Protocol meetings in Montreal (Dr. Tewolde and
others)?"
Middle of May, 2005: As host to world biosafety
negotiations, is Canada playing dirty? Canada is the host country to
the world negotiations on the Convention on Bio Diversity (CBD), negotiations
which involve international safety issues on the use and trade involving
transgenic materials or GMO's. Africa's chief negotiator (Dr. Tewolde)
represents a world majority view that runs counter to Canada's, the US, the
EU and the corporate transgenic giants. Canada, through the administration of
its visa policy, refused Africa's chief negotiator a visa to attend the
concluding meetings in Montreal.
A huge public outcry led to granting
of the visa so Dr. Tewolde eventually attended, but missing the first days of
the meetings. Other attendees from developing countries were also
denied entry visas and were thereby barred from attending - they didn't have
the same ability as Dr. Tewolde to make their plight known. This is a
terrible blight on Canada's international reputation. Not to mention
that it is not the behaviour of a democratic nation.
What the incident
tells me is that there are very influential people in the Government of
Canada who are capable (if their actions go unnoticed) of denying people
their basic rights; people they see as a threat to their agenda.
We do not have democratic Government, or at best we have the remnant of a
democracy. As far as I am aware, there has been no answering: who was
behind the witholding of the visas? That was a very serious abuse of
power that should not go
unanswered.
================================
(2) EXTENT TO
WHICH HERBICIDE TOLERANT WHEAT IS ALREADY "OUT THERE": Thanks to
Kerry.
"I'm afraid BASF was not the first to get its foot in the door.
Cynamid Crop Protections submitted SWP 965001 (Imidazolinone-tolerant) to
CFIA and it was approved for "unconfined release into the environment" on
March 3, 1998. (INSERT: UPDATE FROM KERRY - The Corporate Profile sent
in by Al Taylor shows that BASF bought up Cynamid.)
It was followed by
3 Imidazolinone-tolerant varieties submitted by BASF : AP602CL ( approved
March 20, 2003 but "not intended for cultivation in Canada"); AP205CL
(approved June 11, 2004) and Teal 11a (June 24, 2004). All were approved for
unconfined release but only Teal 11a did not have the caveat - "not intended
for cultivation in Canada". Therefore assume that Teal 11a is being
grown.
It is not clear why CFIA went through the environmental review
process for the other varieties if they were not intended for
cultivation.
One of the main criteria was whether these mutagenic
varities had the potential for becoming weeds and it was deduced that since
wheat is primarily self-pollinated, and had no wild or weedy relatives in
North America, it had low potential for spreading. Nevertheless, the
first approval for Cyanimid's product came with the following caveat (
not appended to BASF's approval).
(INSERT: Sandra - seeds fall
off trucks, out of pant cuffs, off rail cars ?? The RR Canola
experience - by 2 or 3 years ago, 85% of the seed stocks were contaminated
with herbicide tolerant seeds?? I presume the percentage is higher
today if 85% level was reached within 7 years of introduction of the
herbicide tolerant seed. Cross pollination may not be as much an
issue, but it wasn't by pollination alone that herbicide tolerant canola
spread so quickly.)
NOTE: A longer term concern, should there be
general adoption of several different crop/specific herbicide weed management
systems, is the potential development of crop volunteers with a combination
of novel resistances to different herbicides. This could result in the loss
of the use of these herbicides and any of their potential benefits.
Therefore, agricultural extension personnel, in both the private and public
sectors, should promote careful management practices for growers who use
these herbicide tolerant crops, to minimize the development of multiple
resistance.
CFIA also conducted nutritional tests and found that except
for a couple of significant differences (e.g. lower thiamine content) these
varieties did not differ from similar cultivars.
I might add here that
the taste and quality of wheat has already been bred out of it. There's a
young baker here in Victoria who has gone back to the old Red Fife because of
its superior flavour and quality but has a difficult time finding supplies.
(That organic wheat farmer on your network provides him some.)
Anyway,
I hate to say it, but Cyanimid beat out BASF. The precedent is set. The cat's
out of the bag. Pandora is outa the Box. Save your breath.
You might ask
why the earlier caveat was dropped, or why the agency bothers with the
charade of approving varieties that are not intended for cultivation in the
first place ( red herrings ?)."
------------
(INSERT: Sandra
- Christie's Bakery here in Saskatoon is also making bread from Red
Fife. I will try and put together info concerning relationships between
incidence of allergies (gluten intolerance, celiac disease) to wheat of two
types: (1) early varieties such as Red Fife and then the even earlier
kamut and spelt (2) current varieties. Anecdotal evidence says
that people who can't eat wheat have no problems with old varieties.
The most recent I have heard is of a couple who worked in Kenya for 4
years. At home here in Canada he had to eliminate wheat from his
diet. (Which is common, unfortunately) He ate local varieties of
wheat while in Africa with no problem. We have had a long line of
crop development based on yield, disease resistance and high gluten content
(what the bakers want and what Canadian wheat is known for). I think
there is beginning to be research to see whether the anecdotal info has
substance. Unfortunately this is research "in the public interest" and much
more difficult to find funding for.)
Boy! makes you wonder how
the Govt can in good conscience say "Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Accepting Comments on Submission for Approval and Release of Herbicide
Tolerant Wheat" with Jan 7, 2006 deadline. Perhaps they just want to
give us this opportunity to hammer them? Are they a bunch of
masochists?!
======================================
(3) TO
REGISTER YOUR INPUT TO THE GOVERNMENT
ACTION: If you prefer that your
bread be designed to be nutritious:
(2)
Scroll down a tiny bit to: "To provide comments on this submission, please
use the feedback form." (This line appears just above
"Introduction".
(3) Click on "feedback form" and state your
views. Cut and paste from material below, if you like. The best
input is a short one liner. - "I do not want my food supply developed by the
criterion that it be resistant to chemicals." - "Herbicide tolerant wheat
should be banned. It will lead to dramatic increases in the amount of
chemicals in the environment." - "This process is a sham because the CFIA has
already licensed herbicide tolerant
wheat."
=======================================
(4) 298 WORD
LETTER-TO-EDITOR IN RESPONSE TO NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
(What I write is not
"mine". It is an amalgamation of input from many people and
authors. I can't always attribute sources, especially not in
298 words. Anybody is free to cut, copy, paste and use as they see fit,
with their own name on it.)
Dear Editor,
RE: Modified wheat
taking root By Margaret Munro CanWest News Service
Margaret
writes: "this high-tech wheat has avoided the wrath of
farmers, environmentalists, consumers and marketers who drove Monsanto's
herbicide tolerant wheat out of Canada in 2004."
There is great
protest against BASF's herbicide tolerant wheat.
From internet:
- "Do you eat bread? Yummy! More of your bread
will be designed to be resistant to chemicals if BASF has its
way."
- "BASF Clearfield wheat is herbicide tolerant to the
chemical Odyssey [imazamox and imazethapyr]. A concoction that sounds good
enough to drink. Haha. Aside from the poison, and the public issue of GMO,
the issue for me as a farmer and a pulse crop grower is that we use this
chemical effectivly on a variety of pulse crops. We do not need wheat weeds
resistant to it showing up in our pulse fields."
- "Unequivocally,
seeds developed to be resistant to chemicals cause increase in amount of
chemicals in environment. There are more acres of wheat in Canada than
any other crop. To make this crop tolerant of chemicals will lead to
dramatic increase in chems. The herbicide-resistant plants become weeds.
Typically, glyphosate applications are now followed by 2,4D. We are knowingly
- stupidly - setting up vicious circle of increased use."
The Feds
know that Canadians do not want their food supply developed by the criterion
that it be resistant to chemicals, nor a food supply dictated by corporate
interests. The outrage over Monsanto's Roundup Ready Wheat
caused Monsanto to withdraw its application and told the Government
everything it needs to know. (RR wheat was developed through matched
research funding from the Government.)
The Government invites public
participation in the decision to license BASF's herbicide tolerant wheat
(deadline January 7, right after the holidays). But as Margaret's
article points out, herbicide tolerant wheat is already being
grown.
PLEASE take a minute.
Strategically this is part of a larger battle to stop transnational corporate
control. And to force Governments to do their job of protecting the
interests of citizens. There must be a strong showing,
an onslaught. Now is not the time to give up. It's fast and
easy. And pass along this email along. We all have a
stake.
If you prefer that your bread be designed to be nutritious, Go to
#3 TO REGISTER YOUR INPUT TO THE
GOVERNMENT.
===========================================
(6)
CORPORATE PROFILE BASF
PANNA Corporate Profile: BASF AG
November
2005
On this page:
BASF at a Glance Pesticides and Agricultural
Biotechnology A Wide Range of Impacts In Focus: Price-Fixing Undue
Influence Resources for Action
BASF AG BASF is the world's largest
chemical company. It is composed of five business segments: chemicals;
plastics; performance products; agricultural products and nutrition; and oil
and gas. One of BASF's major strategies is to capitalize on synergies amongst
its diverse interests by creating huge multi-function industrial parks where
plants use each other's byproducts as inputs. [1] Despite this emphasis on
reuse of resources, BASF is a company responsible for numerous environmental
disasters and the production of extremely toxic chemicals. BASF at a
Glance
Product sectors In 2004,
Chemicals (18.7%), Plastics (28.1%), Performance Products (21.3%),
Agricultural Products and Nutrition (13.7%), Oil and Gas (14%), Other
(4.2%)[3]
Employees In 2004, BASF had 81,955 employees worldwide, down
from 89,389 employees in 2002[4]
Manufacturing facilities BASF has 100
major manufacturing sites worldwide and operates in 170
countries[5]
Revenues US$51.6 billion in 2004[6]
Net income BASF
earned US$2.5 billion in 2004, US$1.14 billion in 2003, US$1.58 billion in
2002 and US$5.22 billion in 2001[7]
Executive compensation In 2004, the
eight members of BASF's Board of Executive directors received EUR 14 million
(approximately US$16.7 million) in compensation[8]
Type of corporation
Public, traded on the New York Stock Exchange
Pesticides and Agricultural
Biotechnology
BASF's agricultural products division is based in
Limburgerhof, Germany,[9] and operates in 170 countries.[10] Recent
acquisitions of American Cyanamid, Micro Flo Company and Sando Agro have
strengthened BASF's position in the crop protection industry.[11] In 2003,
BASF acquired the insecticide Fipronil in addition to certain fungicides for
seed treatment from Bayer Crop Science.[12] In 2004, the agricultural
products division posted sales of EUR 3.4 billion (approximately US$4
billion).[13]
Pesticides
BASF and its subsidiaries are responsible
for a wide range of harmful pesticide products and ingredients,
including:
Chlorfenapyr Possible carcinogen[14], and testicular and
uterine endocrine disruptor.[15] Citing its environmental persistence and
severe impacts on bird reproduction, EPA denied the registration of
chlorfenapyr for use on cotton in 2000.[16] Meanwhile, Chlorfenapyr is
currently registered for use on many food crops.[17]
Fipronil Highly
effective, broad spectrum insecticide. Frequently used for cockroach and ant
control as well as for pests of field corn, golf courses and commercial
turf.[18] Possible carcinogen, potential ground water contaminant and
suspected endocrine disruptor.[19] In 2004, Louisiana crawfish farmers and
landowners who had suffered severe losses due to ICON contamination (of which
fipronil is the active ingredient) received US$45 million in a class action
settlement.[20]
Flucythrinate Acutely toxic, pyrethroid insecticide.[21]
It is classified as a Restricted Use Pesticide by EPA, meaning it must bear
the word "Danger" on the label.[22] Used to control insect pests in apples,
cabbage, field corn, head lettuce, pears and cotton.[23] Suspected
carcinogen, developmental toxin and endocrine disruptor.[24] It is very
highly toxic to fish, insects and zooplankton and other aquatic animals.[25]
Flucythrinate was banned from use in the EU starting July
2003.[26]
Hydramethylnon Persistent insecticide used in fire ant control
with potential for bioaccumulation in fish.[27] According to the state
of California, Hydramethylnon is a known developmental and male
reproductive toxin, and a possible human carcinogen.[28] Hydramethylnon was
banned from use in the EU starting July 2003. It was re-registered by EPA in
December of 1998.[29]
Malathion Wide-spectrum, organophosphate
insecticide. A PAN Bad Actor chemical, cholinesterase inhibitor, possible
carcinogen, potential ground water contaminant, and suspected endocrine
disruptor.[30] In 1976, 2,800 of 7,500 malathion applicators in Pakistan were
poisoned and five died as a result of impurities produced during storage of
the insecticide.[31] There is evidence that malathion causes birth defects,
kidney failure and intestinal damage, as well as leukemia in
children.[32]
Mecoprop-P Commonly used lawn herbicide. In lab mice,
mecoprop-P has been shown to reduce fertility. A regional study in Canada
revealed that human exposure to mecoprop significantly increases the risk of
the cancer non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.[33] The herbicide is also frequently found
in urban streams. A particularly alarming study, completed in King County,
WA, found mecoprop in every urban stream sample analyzed.[34]
Mancozeb
Carbamate fungicide and cholinesterase inhibitor. In test animals, it is
shown to cause thyroid and carcinogenic effects. It is also known by the
state of California to cause cancer in humans.[35]
Permethrin Pyrethroid
insecticide and neurotoxin.[36] Permethrin is classified as a carcinogen by
EPA because it causes lung and liver tumors in mice. Furthermore, the
insecticide is hazardously toxic to honey bees and other beneficial insects,
fish, aquatic insects, crayfish and shrimp.[37] In part because of its
extreme aqua-toxicity, permethrin is an EPA restricted-use
pesticide.[38]
Phorate Organophosphate pesticide. Of the three million
pounds used in the U.S. annually, 80% is applied to corn, potatoes and
cotton. Phorate is an acutely toxic cholinesterase inhibitor. Even low-level
exposure can manifest in chronic effects such as prolonged neurological and
neuromuscular symptoms.[39] The pesticide is highly toxic to birds, fish and
other wildlife. In a particularly severe incident, phorate was responsible
for the death of 90,000 fish in Arkansas.[40]
Terbufos
Bioaccumulating, organophospate insecticide.[41] Very highly toxic to birds,
mammals and fish. From 1989 to1998, terbufos was the fourth-leading cause of
documented fish kills in the U.S. Its degradates may pose even more of a risk
than the insecticide itself, as they are highly persistent in the
environment.[42]
VinclozolinFungicide, endocrine disruptor and
anti-androgen (a human hormone). Exposure to minute levels of vinclozolin has
been linked to testicular tumors in rats.[43] It is suspected to be
carcinogenic.[44]
Agricultural Biotechnology
In a 1998 joint
venture, BASF and the Swedish seed company Svalöf Weibull AB formed BASF
Plant Science GmbH, a plant biotechnology company.[45] BASF Plant Science
GmbH plans to invest EUR 700 million on plant biotechnology over the next ten
years with the self-described goal of increasing the stress resistance and
nutritional value of crop plants.[46] In 2004, BASF Venture Capital GmbH
invested in the biotech company Sciona Incorporated, located in New Haven,
Connecticut. Sciona's central focus has been to match nutrition and lifestyle
choices with individual genetic profiles.[47] A year later, BASF invested in
Advanced BioNutrition Corporation, in Columbia, Maryland, which concentrates
on functional nutrition to prevent disease.[48] BASF's focus is primarily on
utilizing biotechnology to produce amino acids, vitamins and
enzymes.[49]
Genetically engineered crops pose serious risks to public
health and the environment, increase reliance on pesticides, deepen
agribusiness control over farmers and undermine food security and
sovereignty. Most biotech seeds are licensed to farmers, not sold: making it
illegal to replant, save, trade, share or breed them as farmers have done for
millennia. Global food security requires access to land, small-scale,
ecologically based farming systems and the crop diversity needed to respond
to varied and changing environments and growing conditions. Genetically
engineered crops, in contrast, are an extension of industrial agricultural
practices that concentrate land ownership, rely on synthetic pesticides,
fertilizers and other off-farm inputs, and dramatically reduce crop
biodiversity.
For an overview of agricultural biotechnology and its
impacts, see PANNA's online presentation, "Genetically Engineered Crops and
Foods."[50] located at: http://www.panna.org/resources/geTutorial.html.
A
Wide Range of Impacts
BASF's other social and environmental impacts are
very broad:
Hazardous wastes Five of BASF's manufacturing facilities in
the U.S. rank amongst the worst 10% of comparable facilities for toxic
releases.[51] BASF released 17 million pound of toxins in Texas in 1996
making it Texas' second largest polluter.[52]
Economic blackmail In
1999, BASF threatened to move a paint manufacturing plant from Ontario,
Canada, to Mexico if air pollution standards were raised.[53]
Air
pollution violations On two occasions in Will County, Illinois, BASF failed
to notify the state's Emergency Management Agency about air
pollution discharges that were in violation of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act. In addition, the company was accused of failing to notify the
agency in an appropriate manner. In 2004, as a consequence, BASF agreed to
pay US$141,000 in fines.[54]
Cheating farmers In 2004, the Minnesota
Supreme Court upheld an appellate court ruling against BASF for charging
different prices for two products, Poast and Poast Plus. Both contained the
same active ingredients and were approved for the same use by EPA. BASF was
ordered to pay a US$52 million fine for charging some farmers nearly US$32
more per gallon than others.[55]
Labor practices In 1984, BASF locked out
370 members of the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Union from its Geismar,
Louisiana, facility.[56] The lockout, which would last until 1989, was the
longest in U.S. labor history.[57]
Outsourcing BASF is undertaking a
major outsourcing effort. Beginning in mid-2003, the company initiated
restructuring and job cuts within its North American and European business.
BASF's employees in North America have been reduced by approximately 4,000
(equivalent to 4% of its workforce).[58] This was coupled with the
elimination of approximately 3,600 jobs from its main plant in Ludwigshafen,
Germany.[59] Ultimately, the company has announced its plans to close a total
of at least ten plants and to expand its operation in Asia,[60] including
China.[61]
Illegal importation and sales of pesticides In September 2001,
EPA fined Micro Flo (a wholly owned subsidiary of BASF) US$3.7 million for
673 violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act relating to illegal importation and sale of millions of pounds of
pesticides in the U.S.[62]
Holocaust complicity BASF was a participant
in the I.G. Farben cartel (along with Bayer, Hoechst and others) which was
fundamental to the creation of the Nazi war machine.[63] I.G. Farben produced
synthetic oil and rubber in Auschwitz during World War II. In this venture,
the company made use of approximately 83,000 laborers from concentration
camps.[64] I.G. Farben also held the patent for the pesticide Zyklon, which
was used in the gas chambers. After the war, I.G. Farben divided into its
former constituent companies, known today as Agfa, Bayer and
BASF.[65]
In Focus: Price-Fixing
In 1999, BASF was criminally
fined for its involvement in a vitamin price-fixing cartel. The company was
accused of conspiring with several other European and Japanese pharmaceutical
companies, holding annual meetings and making secret agreements involving
vitamin pricing and sales volume.[66] The vitamins most commonly affected
included those used as nutritional supplements or to enrich human and animal
food--among these were vitamins A, B2, B5, C, and E.[67]
As a
consequence, BASF AG was ordered to pay US$225 million[68] to compensate
consumers and businesses in the United States. The settlement was the largest
under state laws permitting consumers and businesses to sue for damages
caused by price-fixing charges.[69] Soon thereafter, in 2001, the European
Commission fined the company an additional US$260 million. This brought the
total expected cost of fines, out-of-court settlements, and legal expenses to
about US$800 million.[70] Furthermore, as a result of this scheme, BASF also
has faced a class action lawsuit.[71]
According to Joel I. Klein, former
U.S. Assistant Attorney General, "During the life of the conspiracy,
virtually every American consumer paid artificially inflated prices for
vitamins and vitamin enriched foods in order to feed the greed of these
defendants and their co-conspirators who reaped hundreds of millions of
dollars in additional revenues."[72]
Undue Influence
To advance
their interests, powerhouses like BASF invest heavily in political and social
influence. Some of BASF's efforts to influence policy and public opinion
include:
Trade organizations and think tanks Some of the trade and
policy organizations in which BASF participates include:
a..
Agricultural Biotechnology Council (http://www.abcinformation.org/) b..
Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (http://www.abeurope.info/) c.. Canadian
Chemical Producers' Association (http://www.ccpa.ca/) d.. Chemical Industry
Institute of Toxicology (http://www.ciit.org/) e.. Council for
Biotechnology Information (http://www.whybiotech.com/) f.. Council
for Responsible Nutrition (http://www.crnusa.org/) g.. CropLife Canada
(http://www.croplife.ca/) h.. European
Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (http://www.ecetoc.org/) i.. European Crop
Protection Association (http://www.ecpa.be/) j.. International Chamber
of Commerce (http://www.iccwbo.org/) k..
International Food Information Council (http://www.ific.org/) l.. UN Global Compact
(http://www.unglobalcompact.org/) Campaign
contributions During the 2004 election cycle, BASF Political
Action Committees (PACs) contributed US$87,000 to candidates for federal
office in the U.S. Meanwhile, individual BASF employees contributed US$12,200
during the same period.[73] In the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, BASF
PACs contributed about US$220,000 to candidates for federal office (more than
80% Republican).[74] Furthermore, BASF made a total of US$140,247 in soft
money contributions to the Republican and Democratic parties in the 1998,
2000 and 2002 election cycles.[75]
Lobbying Between 1998 to 2004, BASF
spent US$4,490,000 lobbying in Washington. In 2004 alone, BASF spent a total
of US$460,000 lobbying the U.S. government.[76] Additionally, many of the
trade organizations to which BASF belongs deploy teams of lobbyists that work
on behalf of the company's interests.
Resources for Action
The
following resources are good starting points for more information about BASF
and how you can help hold BASF accountable for its impacts.
Scorecard (http://www.scorecard.org) Environmental
Defense's toxic release information Web site. You can look up BASF's toxic
release information and locations of its U.S. facilities.
PAN Pesticides Database (http://www.pesticideinfo.org) Pesticide
Action Network North America's pesticide database allows you to search for
toxicity, regulatory and other information by chemical
or product.
[16] "EPA Determines that Chlorfenapyr Does Not Meet
the Requirements for Registration; American Cyanamid Withdraws Application,"
Environmental Protection Agency, <http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reg_assessment/>
on 30 March 2004.
[31] W. N. Aldridge et al, "Malathion Not as Safe
as Believed - 5 Die - 2,800 Poisoned," Archives in Toxicology,
1979, <http://www.chem-tox.com/malathion/research/
- human> on 30 March 2004.
[52]
News Release, Texans for Public Justice, "Texas Chemical Council Members
Dump: 187 Million Pound of Toxins in Texas, Up to $10 million into State
Politics," 11 August 1999, <http://www.tpj.org/press_releases/toxic_exp.html>
on 30 March 2004.
[54] "Madigan, Tomczak Reach Agreement with Delaware
Corporation Over Air Pollution Allegations," Illinois Attorney General Lisa
Madigan Press Release, 16 March 2004, <http://www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2004_03/20040316a.html>
on 30 March 2004.
[55] "Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds $52 Million
Class Action Judgment Against BASF Corporation," Press Release Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 19 February 2004, <http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/040219/52946.html>
on 30 March 2004.
[73] "BASF CORP, Contributions from Chemical &
Related Manufacturing Ind, Source of Funds (2004 Cycle)," Open Secrets,
<http://www.opensecrets.org/> on 7
October 2005.
By re-enacting an evolutionary event that happened to wheat
thousands of years ago, researchers are producing new plant varieties that
could save lives in regions where drought causes food shortages.
Bread
wheat (Triticum aestivum), a staple food for millions of people around the
world, is the product of two rare genetic events that happened during the
Stone Age in a region of the Middle East known as the
'fertile crescent'.
Two different species can't usually breed to
produce hybrid offspring, because their chromosomes don't match and can't
pair properly during the process that produces sex cells such as eggs and
sperm. But sometimes a genetic blip can produce sex cells with double the
normal number of chromosomes, side-stepping the problem. If two sex cells of
this type combine, a whole new fertile species with double the number of
chromosomes is produced.
Doubling up
This rare 'duplication
followed by fertilization' event has happened twice in the history of modern,
common wheat. Around 30,000 years ago, a wild wheat (Triticum monococcum)
hybridized with a species of goat grass (Aegilops speltoides) to generate
primitive wheat called emmer, which had four sets of chromosomes. Then about
9,000 years ago, emmer wheat grown south of the Caspian Sea crossed with
another wild goat grass (Aegilops tauschii) to produce a plant with six sets
of chromosomes.
This hybrid had larger seeds than its ancestors, thanks
to the bonus chromosomes, and so became a popular breed for early farmers.
The descendents of these plants now cover more farmland globally than any
other crop, filling more than 500 million acres worldwide.
But this
genetic triumph came with a downside: the wheat was so popular that no one
farmed anything else, leading to a very low genetic diversity and limiting
the options for plant breeders hoping to develop varieties resistant to
drought or pests. To counter this, researchers at the International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico have developed a way to top up
bread wheat's shallow gene pool.
Something old, something
new
"We've been re-enacting in the lab what took place in nature nine
thousand years ago," says Richard Trethowan, a specialist in wheat breeding
at CIMMYT. Researchers collected wild goat grass from the Middle East
and crossed it with modern versions of emmer wheat to create bread wheat
all over again. They used chemicals in the lab to induce the rare
chromosome doubling that makes hybrids fertile.
The technique helps to
introduce new genes in the same way as genetic engineering, but without
requiring the researchers to know which genes they are on the lookout for
beforehand.
The new bread wheats are not themselves suitable for farming,
since most of the new hybrids have qualities that are more advantageous to
grasses than to wheat. "They're ugly things," says Trethowan. But he adds
that it is easy to use traditional breeding methods to get the few useful
genes into common bread wheat strains.
Food for thought
The
genetic input has allowed improvements to wheat's drought resistance, for
example. One wheat strain developed by the team produces between 20 and 40%
more grain under dry conditions than traditional bread wheat, the researchers
told an international symposium of plant breeders in December.
CIMMYT has
sent seeds produced by the research out to centres worldwide for local
testing and development, and initial results have been promising. Farmers in
Ecuador are racing to switch to one test strain that significantly
outperforms the established local wheat, Trethowan says. He predicts that in
five or six years time the new genes found by reinventing wheat will be
dramatically improving yields everywhere. "We're on the brink of quite a big
genetic revolution for wheat breeding," says Trethowan.
John Snape, a
cereal geneticist at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK, adds that rich
countries will probably benefit from this revolution too. "It is likely that
climates in Europe will get hotter and drier thanks to climate change, and
this will put new stresses on crops," he says. One fungal wheat disease,
Fusarium head blight, has already started to plague European fields thanks to
warmer, more humid summers, he points out. "Being able to reach out into wild
species for new genes to tackle these problems is very valuable," he
says.
*** NOTICE:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed,
without profit, for research and educational purposes
only. ***
============================== Email from: Sandra
Finley Saskatoon, SK 306-373-8078 sabest1@sasktel.net
--
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date:
1/6/2006