We need to protect our favourite vegetables!

29 June 2016, 11 a.m. – 2 p.m. European Patent Office, Bob van Benthem Platz 1, Munich

European patent laws say that patents cannot be granted on plant and animal varieties or on the conventional breeding of plants and animals. At present, the European Patent Office (EPO) is completely undermining these prohibitions. Within last months, we have collected about 800.000 signatures from people all over Europe on a petition calling for politicians to take action and properly enforce EU law. On 29 June 2016, we will be handing these signatures over to the EPO at the above venue. To emphasise our point and as a visible reminder, we will be carrying our favourite vegetables with us – tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuces, onions, beans, carrots and cabbage and so on …. We will be sending a very clear message: Protect our vegetables from patents held by seed giants such as Bayer and Monsanto!

European Food Safety Authority and German risk assessment institute BfR are in contempt of the law in claiming glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk, say groups

In an open letter, thirty-one European environmental, health, trade union, consumer protection and medical organisations have called upon EU Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and the Ambassadors of the member states to stop any further extension of glyphosate’s authorisation.

Signatories of the open letter include Pesticide Action Network Europe, Breast Cancer UK, Corporate Europe Observatory, the International Union of Food Workers, and GMWatch.

The letter points out that in assessing the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and concluding that it was unlikely to pose a cancer risk, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ignored relevant OECD guidelines, falsely interpreted animal carcinogenicity studies, and systematically rejected relevant epidemiological studies by wrongly claiming them to be "unreliable”.

Gene drives are designed to relentlessly drive a specific genetic trait through an entire species or population – with the potential to reshape entire natural populations and ecosystems, and possibly driving species to extinction. The development of a powerful genome editing tool in 2012, CRISPR/Cas9 has led to recent breakthroughs in gene drive research. Gene-drive modified organisms are on the horizon.

The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) convened a committee with a broad range of expertise to summarize the scientific discoveries related to gene drives and considerations for their responsible use. The NAS has since released its report (Item 1). Its main conclusion is that gene-drive modified organisms are not ready to be released into the environment and require more research in laboratories and highly controlled field trials to understand the scientific, ethical, regulatory, and social consequences of releasing such organisms. The committee urged caution and has recommended a collaborative, multidisciplinary, and cautionary approach to research on and governance of gene drive technologies.

by Jim Thomas (The Guardian): ‘Gene drives’ seem to be the ultimate high-leverage technology. Yesterday’s report from the US National Academies begun the job of describing what is at stake, but it missed some important questions.

If there is a prize for the fastest emerging tech controversy of the century the ‘gene drive’ may have just won it. In under eighteen months the sci-fi concept of a ‘mutagenic chain reaction’ that can drive a genetic trait through an entire species (and maybe eradicate that species too) has gone from theory to published proof of principle to massively-shared TED talk (apparently an important step these days) to the subject of a US National Academy of Sciences high profile study – complete with committees, hearings, public inputs and a glossy 216 page report release. Previous technology controversies have taken anywhere from a decade to over a century to reach that level of policy attention. So why were Gene Drives put on the turbo track to science academy report status? One word: leverage.

STRAUBING, GERMANY — Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) announced on June 2 that it has successfully started up its new soybean crushing capacity at its oilseeds plant in Straubing, Germany and is now looking at further expanding its soy crushing options at other facilities in northwest Europe.

(.....)

Straubing’s new capability allows the site to crush soybeans sourced from the Danube region in order to market European non-GMO soymeal and oil to customers in Western Europe.

(.....)

“We are pleased with the product throughput and quality we are seeing at the plant and excited that we are now also able to supply non-GMO soymeal and oil from Danube-grown soybeans to our customers,” said Rene van der Poel, general manager of ADM’s Straubing facility. “I wish to thank the whole project team and our customers for their help and support in successfully getting this project off the ground.”

A proposal for a temporary 'technical extension' of the EU approval of the herbicide glyphosate today failed to secure the support of a majority of EU governments (1). Commenting on the development,Green environment and food safety spokesperson Bart Staes stated:

"We applaud those EU governments who are sticking to their guns and are refusing to authorise this controversial toxic herbicide. There are clear concerns about the health risks with glyphosate, both as regards it being a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor. Moreover, glyphosate's devastating impact on biodiversity should have already led to its ban. Thankfully, the significant public mobilisation and political opposition to reapproving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments, who have forced the EU Commission to back down.

"Three strikes must mean the approval of glyphosate is finally ruled out.

Press release - June 1, 2016

Brussels – The European Commission is seeking political backing to allow unrestricted use of controversial weedkiller glyphosate by labelling the decision as temporary, warned Greenpeace.

The Commission has scheduled a vote on an “extension” of the glyphosate licence for Monday 6 June. The Commission’s plan ignores scientific evidence that glyphosate is a probable cause of cancer and fails to limit human exposure to the herbicide, said Greenpeace.

In April, the European Parliament called for a ban on all private uses of glyphosate, as well as spraying around public parks and playgrounds. It also opposed glyphosate spraying just ahead of harvesting, and called for the immediate disclosure of all scientific evidence used by the European Food Safety Authority to back up its claim that glyphosate is unlikely to cause harm.

Who’s going to eat whose lunch … the Hardware Grunts or the Software Gurus? The Battle for the control of agricultural inputs is just beginning. Time for a “Kickboxer” Campaign?

Submitted on 30 May 2016

Bayer’s $62 billion bid for Monsanto, as of this writing, has been rejected, but both parties say they are continuing to negotiate. That the “Joy of Six” agricultural input companies may soon become a ménage à trois has been a matter of speculation in ETC Group since mid-2014. If (and it is a big “if”) the marriages of Dow with DuPont, ChemChina with Syngenta, and Bayer with Monsanto are consummated, the only wallflower left on the dance floor, BASF, will either have to hook up or give up.

Agriculture is, relatively speaking, small potatoes for the German chemical giant, but, still, it brought home $7.2 billion in crop chemical sales in 2014 and commands a hefty 11.5% of the global pesticide market. Although BASF invests in plant breeding and breeding technologies, it doesn’t directly sell seeds. Instead, the company collaborates on R&D all along the food chain – with Monsanto (developing GMO traits), with Yara (producing ammonia for fertilizers), with synbio company Evolva (developing biosynthetic pesticides), with Cargill (developing oils high in omega-3), with Deere & Co. (selling crop insurance, precision agriculture) – and it has cross-licensing deals with major seed companies including Monsanto, DuPont and Dow.

BASF could give Bayer a run for its money wooing Monsanto, or it may decide its dance card is full enough. Or, the company may choose to spin off its Plant Science business altogether. If so, one of the top three farm machinery companies could be a buyer: Deere & Co., CNH or AGCO (in order of sales).

Member states are to have another go at coming to an agreement on the use of the pesticide glyphosate next week. EurActiv Germany reports.

An EU official has told AFP that a meeting has been scheduled for 6 June, in which the member states will try to come to a consensus on whether or not to reauthorise the use of the controversial chemical. An option that is currently on the table is to extend the existing authorisation period until the middle of next year.

Glyphosate is one of the most used ingredients in pesticides in the EU, but its potentially carcinogenic nature has brought its use under close scrutiny. A decision on whether to grant it a multi-year extension has already failed to materialise twice because of disagreements between member states.

On the heels of Canada’s approval of GMO salmon, Friends of the Earth U.S. and a coalition of more than 30 consumer, health, food safety and fishing groups released updated numbers Wednesday showing that nearly 80 major food retailers have committed to not sell genetically engineered salmon, despite FDA’s approval last November.

“Despite irresponsible approvals, the growing number of commitments from retailers demonstrates there is no market for GMO salmon,” Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said. “Retailers and restaurants are wisely listening to their customers and rejecting GMO salmon.”

Albertsons Companies, owner of Albertsons, Safeway, Vons, ACME, Shaw’s and others, stated its commitment to not sell GMO salmon.