|
|
 |
" I heard it
through the
AgLine"
|
|
April 14, 2010
·
GM crops
beneficial; But … US experts say
·
Water wealth
lands Calif. couple in court
·
Florida
poised to pass tomato-safety bill
·
Tough new
spuds take on double trouble
·
‘No
malpractice’ by Climate Research Unit
GM crops beneficial; But
… US experts say
(Reuters
via Yahoo! News) WASHINGTON
– Genetically engineered crops are profitable for farmers and may help protect
people and the environment from an overload of pesticides, a panel of experts
reported on Tuesday.
But there is a risk that weeds are developing resistance to
Roundup, a weedkiller that is used to treat fields
planted with certain genetically modified crops, the researchers said.
And genetic engineering is not being exploited enough, given
its potential benefits, the National Research Council panel concluded.
"We do see good, hard evidence that weed resistance is
growing to glyphosate. That needs serious attention," said David Ervin of Portland State
University in Oregon, who chaired the panel.
Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto's widely used
Roundup herbicide. The weedkiller is considered safer
for people than other pesticides. "It in general replaces more toxic
chemicals," Ervin, a professor of environmental studies, said in a
telephone interview.
Monsanto also has genetically engineered a range of crops to
resist its effects.
That means farmers can use more Roundup without fear of
damaging their crops. But the practice may have allowed weeds to develop their
own natural resistance, the expert committee found.
Nine weed species in the United States have developed
resistance to glyphosate since the introduction of genetically engineered
crops, compared with seven in areas where genetically modified crops are not
used, the report found.
But in general the use of gene-engineered crops is
beneficial, the experts found.
LOWER COSTS, HIGHER YIELDS
"Farmers who have adopted genetically engineered crops
have experienced lower costs of production and obtained higher yields in many
cases because of more cost-effective weed control and reduced losses from
insect pests," reads the report from the Council, one of the independent
National Academies of Science that advise the federal
government.
"Farmers and their employees not only face reduced
exposure to the harsh chemicals found in some herbicides and insecticides used
before the introduction of genetically engineered crops but have to spend less
time in the field in applying the pesticides."
Ervin said the panel did not address safety or health
issues, which were covered in previous reports. "We attempted to navigate
a middle ground on this. We were not intending to be pro or con," Ervin
said.
Using crops engineered to resist pesticides allows farmers
to rely less on tilling the soil, a practice that can reduce soil quality and
worsen erosion, the report found.
Other types of genetic modification have also been helpful,
the experts found. "Insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of
insect-resistant crops," the report reads.
So far, these engineered genes have not spread to the wild
to create super weeds, the report found -- at least not in the United States.
But the risk remains.
The National Research Council report said that crops
engineered for pest control now cover more than 80 percent of the acres planted
to soybean, cotton and corn, or almost half of U.S. cropland.
If anything, genetically engineered crops are not used
enough, the report said.
"With proper management, genetic-engineering technology
could help address food insecurity by reducing yield losses through its
introduction into other crops and with the development of other yield
protection traits like drought tolerance," it concludes.
Return to Top
Water wealth lands Calif. couple in court
(Los
Angeles Times) – They grew their fortune in the California
sun, turning pedestrian fruits and nuts into a vast and varied empire that
secured their place in Hollywood.
Stewart and Lynda Resnick's flashy
bottles of Fiji Water and POM Wonderful are now coveted across the globe. Their
donations keep the lights on in art museums across the country. And Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Arianna Huffington count them among their dearest friends.
But as their market share rises worldwide, one of the
billionaires' competitors is fighting back, accusing the Western power couple
of profiting at the public's expense, court records and interviews show.
Now, as drought-stricken California weighs whether to give
private companies more control in managing its scarce water supplies, a new
lawsuit claiming the Resnicks violated utilities law
by making money from a vast, taxpayer-funded underground reservoir is causing a
stir in the state Capitol.
"Water is a public resource, owned by the people,"
said Democratic Assemblyman Jared Huffman of San Rafael. "We shouldn't be giving away
public funds to private sector interests, let alone choosing winners and losers
in the business world."
The Resnicks, who live in a Beverly Hills mansion and have a second home in Aspen, Colo.,
are among the nation's largest corporate farmers and are generous
philanthropists and political donors, giving $536,000 to Democratic and
Republican California governors in the last decade.
The Los Angeles Business Journal estimates the couple's
empire is worth $1.5 billion. It includes about 120,000 acres in California's
Central Valley — where they say they own more fresh citrus, almond and
pistachio trees than anyone else in the country — and a facility akin to the
Fort Knox of water.
That kind of success, Lynda Resnick
said in a telephone interview, can inspire jealousy, and likely motivated this
most recent "nuisance" lawsuit. Her husband declined to be
interviewed.
After growing up working class in Highland
Park, N.J., Stewart Resnick started a business waxing floors while in law
school at the University of California, Los
Angeles. The couple bought farmland in the 1980s as a
hedge against inflation, gaining access to water contracts attached to those
parcels.
As drought has hammered the region, leading farmers to
abandon their dry fields, the Resnicks' 48 percent
stake in the Kern Water Bank, an underground pool that stores billions of
gallons of freshwater, has become increasingly valuable.
Court records show that in early 2007, the Resnicks' companies' combined water holdings reached
755,868 acre feet — more than twice the size of San Francisco's Hetch
Hetchy reservoir. In 2007, that volume would have
qualified as California's
11th largest reservoir, but the firms' water holdings have diminished
significantly since, company officials said.
That cache provided enough to nourish the Resnicks' orchards, but it also offered another benefit.
From 2000 to 2007, records show the state paid the Resnicks
an additional $30.6 million for water previously stored there as part of a
program to protect fish native to the ecologically fragile Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta.
Lynda Resnick's marketing savvy
helped build cachet around her otherwise obscure brands, such as POM Wonderful
pomegranate juice, Cuties mandarins and Teleflora floral bouquets.
Revered among advertisers as the "Pom
Queen," she has hired medical scientists to bear out health claims that
their fruits and nuts help fight disease and extend life expectancy. Last year,
following a nationwide recall of pistachios over salmonella fears, she hired
Levi Johnston, the teen father of Sarah Palin's
grandson, to promote the snack nuts. The domestic business grew by 40 percent
over the last crop year.
"We've done more for the pistachio than anyone ever
since it was planted in the Garden of Eden," she said in the phone
interview. "My husband should be canonized for all the work he's
done."
Others in agribusiness see it differently.
Ali Amin, a Persian immigrant who
owns a competing processing plant, filed a lawsuit in late March in Fresno
County Superior Court claiming the Resnicks violated California public
utilities laws because they turned a profit by selling water to farmers who
weren't members of their Bakersfield-based water company, Westside Mutual Water
Co.
"You feel like David fighting Goliath," Amin said. "If they're allowed to keep doing this, the
rest of the independents and small growers won't be able to compete."
Amin's lawsuit alleges he lost
$5.5 million in revenue when growers lured by water supplies sold their nuts to
the Resnicks' plant, which processes almost
two-thirds of the nation's pistachios. Amin controls
about 5 percent of the market.
Resnick and other water users in
agricultural Kern County gained control of the Kern bank — the largest
underground water storage facility in the nation — in the mid 1990s, following
a round of negotiations with the state Department of Water Resources. Their
position was that the state had shorted rural areas in allotting water in a
previous drought.
To avoid potential litigation from unhappy water users,
state officials ceded ownership of the Kern Water Bank — developed with $74
million from the department and $23 million in taxpayer-approved bonds — to a
local water agency. In return, water users gave back 45,000 acre feet from the
amount they contracted to receive each year.
The deal was a pivotal moment in the rise of the Resnicks' business interests. Ownership of the bank
ultimately was transferred to a joint powers authority including the local
water agency, the Resnicks' Westside Mutual Water Co.
and four water districts.
Westside distributes water stored there to its members, the
operations that grow Resnick's fruits and nuts,
according to court records.
To prevent price-gouging, the California Public Utilities
Commission requires most mutual water companies to register as public utilities
and subject their rates to state regulation if they sell water to non-members
for profit. There are some exceptions, such as a "water emergency,"
but the PUC rules require those sales to non-members to be at cost.
PUC staff attorney Fred Harris said Westside had not
registered with the PUC. If the company skirted the law, by selling water to
non-members at a profit — as the Amin suit alleges —
Harris said Westside could be required to register and set up rates with the
commission.
Assemblyman Huffman and Sen. Dean Florez,
D-Shafter, said those allegations in the Amin lawsuit
touch on a broader debate about whether companies should be able to profit from
taxpayer-funded waterworks amid a drought.
An $11.1 billion water bond signed last year by
Schwarzenegger would allow private companies to partially own, operate and
profit from dams, reservoirs and water banks built with billions in public
funds. It won't become law unless voters approve it on the November ballot, and
it's unclear how the bond proposal would interact with current laws on
public-private partnerships.
"I don't think anyone wants to see this become a gift
of public funds to private corporations," said Huffman, who is considering
introducing a bond amendment to remove or clarify the language.
Bill Phillimore, who directs Resnick's water company, said the company has managed
scarce water supplies responsibly, and he and his bosses have spent "a
considerable amount of time to make sure we get value out of the last
drop."
Rob Six, a spokesman for the couple's private holding
company, Roll International Corp., said the Amin suit
was "frivolous," and said the company would seek sanctions against Amin's processing business.
Both sides claim victory in a previous suit in which many of
the same claims were raised. A jury awarded Amin
$3.46 million late last month after deciding a pistachio grower who had
supplied his plant breached his contract by later sending his nuts to the Resnicks. A Fresno County Superior Court judge granted the Resnicks' request to be dismissed from the suit.
After Amin's first suit was filed,
two of Resnick's companies filed a federal suit in
Los Angeles against Amin, his processing plant and
his agricultural consultant, alleging Amin's plant
engaged in false advertising that Resnick's companies
to suffer up to $15 million in damages.
"There are very jealous people out there," Lynda Resnick said. "But we usually win because we have such
good in-house counsel."
The Resnicks,
who have had legal tangles with everyone from Tiger Woods to the Diana,
Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, have a good track record at winning.
Their suit to kill the California Pistachio Commission, a
board farmers paid to do generic marketing for the snack nut, proved so
expensive that after spending more than $2 million in legal fees, farmers gave
up and voted to disband the commission three years ago.
"Here you had one man who had the money and thought he
knew what was best, and didn't want to take part in a democratic
organization," said Brian Blackwell, president of the Western Pistachio
Association, which now represents smaller growers. "Whatever he's doing,
he's going to try to run the show."
Return to Top
Florida
poised to pass tomato-safety bill
(Bradenton.com)
MANATEE — A bill designed to ensure the food safety of
Florida-grown tomatoes is poised for a vote Thursday in the state House of
Representatives.
The measure came up Tuesday on the House’s special order
calendar, which cleared the way for a floor vote later in the week, according
to the office of state Rep. Bill Galvano,
R-Bradenton, who, as chair of the House Rules and Calendar Council, sets the
chamber’s agenda.
“I think it’ll pass,” said Butch Calhoun, director of
governmental affairs for the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, which
represents a majority of the state’s fruit and vegetable growers. “There was no
opposition, no amendments. If anybody was going to take a run at it, they’d do
it now.”
The Florida Senate has already passed an identical measure
35-1.
The bill was written with the help of at least one local
tomato grower.
Manatee
County farmers raise
almost a third of the 32,400 acres planted in tomatoes in the state, according
to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
The legislation is another step in a series of industry and
regulators’ efforts designed to set minimum food safety standards, The Herald
has previously reported.
It would authorize the state to inspect tomato farms,
greenhouses and packing facilities, and add enforcement powers.
Local tomato growers favor the legislation because it sets
standards that would apply to everyone who grows,
distributes or handles tomatoes, The Herald has reported.
The legislation revises the term “food establishment” to
include tomato repackers for purposes of the Florida
Food Safety Act, and requires minimum food safety standards for producing,
harvesting, packing, and repacking tomatoes, according to the bill.
Return to Top
Tough new spuds take on double trouble
(ScienceDaily.com)
– Americans love potatoes, consuming about 130 pounds per person annually. But
it's a wonder the spuds even make it to the dinner table, given the many fungal
diseases that attack the tuber crop -- powdery scab and black dot among them.
Now, five new potato breeding lines being tested by
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and collaborators could open the
door to new varieties of the crop that resist powdery scab and black dot
diseases, caused by the fungi Spongospora subterranea and Colletotrichum coccodes, respectively.
These fungi often occur together in the same soil, attacking
the potato plant's roots, tubers or stems. Outbreaks can cause yield losses of
up to 25 percent and prevent tubers from reaching the sizes needed by the french fry and fast-food industry. Of the two fungi, only
black dot can be chemically controlled with fungicides; however, multiple
applications are needed, ratcheting up production costs to prohibitive levels.
A more sustainable alternative is genetic resistance, according to geneticist
Chuck Brown, with the ARS Vegetable and Forage Crops Production Research
Laboratory in Prosser, Wash.
In studies conducted there since 2004 with Washington State
University professor Dennis Johnson, assistant Tom F. Cummings and postdoctoral
associate Nadav Nitzan,
Brown screened an existing collection of wild and cultivated potatoes for
sources of natural resistance to powdery scab and black dot in a local grower's
infested field.
The effort ultimately led to five advanced potato breeding
lines that had been developed from a wild species from Mexico, Solanum
hougasii, and a recent commercial release, Summit
Russet. In three years of field trials in Washington
State and Idaho, the potato breeding lines
consistently showed fewer disease symptoms -- root galling for powdery scab and
sclerotia-infected stems for black dot -- than other
lines and varieties tested.
The potato breeding lines themselves aren't intended for
production. Instead, they'll be made available as seed for use in breeding
programs aimed at developing the first commercial varieties with dual
resistance to the fungal diseases, according to Brown, who discussed the
research at the 48th Annual Washington State Potato Conference in January.
The research findings have been published in the journal
Plant Disease.
Return to Top
‘No malpractice’ by Climate Research
Unit
(BBC News) –
There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's
Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate"
affair.
This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research
published by the unit.
It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were
published online.
The panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked
more closely with professional statisticians.
This would ensure the best methods were used when analysing the complex and often "messy" data on
climate, the report said.
"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising
that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not
been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,"
the panel remarked in its conclusions.
The e-mails issue came to light in November last year, when
hundreds of messages between CRU scientists and their peers around the world
were posted on the world wide web, along with other
documents.
Critics said that the e-mail exchanges revealed an attempt
by the researchers involved to manipulate data.
But a recent House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee report into the e-mails concluded that the scientists involved had no
intention to deceive.
And Lord Oxburgh said that he
hoped these further "resounding affirmations" of the unit's
scientific practice would put those suspicions to bed.
He stated: "We found absolutely no evidence of any
impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their
conclusions, but scientists people were doing their jobs honestly."
Climate interest
The chair has been challenged over his other interests. Lord
Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture
and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck
Renewables.
Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from
policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh
insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view.
The panel included Professor David Hand, president of the
Royal Statistical Society, who had been examining the way CRU used statistical
methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.
Climate sceptics have argued CRU's statistical methods were inadequate.
And Professor Hand pointed out that the translation of "messy
data" into clear facts had caused problems.
But he said that the CRU were "to be commended for how
they dealt with the data," adding that, in their research papers, they
were very open about the uncertainty in the numbers.
It is straightforward to get a measurement precise in space
and time from an individual weather station - albeit with uncertainties
attached.
But some countries have many weather stations, while others
have very few, and there are sizeable areas of the Earth with no surface measurements
at all.
"Unfortunately," Professor Hand said, "when
this research is [republished and] popularised, those
caveats tend to be forgotten."
He added that CRU had been "a little naïve" in not
working more closely with statisticians.
Lord Oxburgh said that undertaking
such interdisciplinary work in the future would address the fact that the there
"probably there wasn't enough involvement of people outside of the
immediate [climatic research] community" in the work undertaken at CRU.
UEA's vice chancellor Edward Acton
said he welcomed the report.
"It is especially important that, despite a deluge of
allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly
reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific
malpractice," he said.
Return to Top
End Transmission