" I heard it through the AgLine"

August 7, 2009

 

·        Organic food debate boils over in Great Britain

·        Wiring rural America carries hefty price tag

·        Syngenta acquires Monsanto sunflower business

·        Industry uncertain of need for produce promo board

·        Fruit, veg crisis ruins French minister’s summer

 

 

Organic food debate boils over in Great Britain

 

(The Independent UK) – The scientist who concluded that organic food is no healthier than conventional produce has been bombarded with abusive messages from zealous environmentalists.

 

Dr Alan Dangour, a nutritionist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told The Independent that hundreds of people had contacted him since his work was published, with many accusing him of dishonesty and incompetence in emails peppered with swear words.

 

"A lot of them have been unpleasant reading," said Dr Dangour, whose controversial study found no evidence that organic food was significantly healthier than food produced using chemicals. "They were saying I'm a quack [and that] I should do something else and stop wasting my time, but also a lot of stuff saying I must have been funded by Monsanto or big industry."

 

The academic said that, although he was not upset by the correspondence, he was surprised by the strength of feeling on the issue. His research, funded by the Food Standards Agency, could hit the £2bn-a-year organic industry, which is already losing sales in the recession.

 

In another blow to its reputation yesterday, John Mackey, the boss of Whole Foods Market, criticised his US company's flagship British store in Kensington, west London, for selling too many fatty organic products. "We sell a bunch of junk," he said, admitting the need to concentrate on health at his UK division, which lost £36m last year despite the considerable public interest in organic produce.

 

Research shows that nine out of 10 British shoppers buys organic, but debate has long raged about whether it is healthier for shoppers as well as better for the environment.

 

Dr Dangour's study, published last week in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has polarised opinion between those for whom it has confirmed long-held suspicions and those who believe it was one-sided. In an article in The Daily Mail the food writer Joanna Blythman, branded the study a "cancerous conspiracy".

 

Dr Dangour, whose team reviewed 50 years of scientific papers, estimated he had been sent between 250 and 300 emails, with hundreds more arriving at the FSA and his university. Among the more printable comments were: "Shame on you and this bogus so-called study," and: "To the quacks who wrote the study and concluded that organic foods have no health benefits over conventional foods: you blokes are freakin' whacky."

 

Dr Dangour, who said he found the abuse "mildly entertaining", added: "I have received an awful lot of emails. Half have been positive, saying we really needed this, and I have received a lot of negative emails, some of which have been abusive. I'm not sure I expected that. I was quite taken aback.

 

"Some have questioned my integrity and independence; whether I am funded by big agriculture or industry. It's professionally hurtful for people to say: 'You must be funded by industry or otherwise you wouldn't have come up with that finding'."

 

Organic supporters have complained that Dr Dangour's study should have looked at the impact of pesticides on health, while others pointed out that the work did not nullify the environmental benefit of organic farms, which are generally acknowledged to be good for wildlife. Others said they bought organic food because it tasted better.

 

The Soil Association, Britain's main organic certification body, pointed out that while all 162 relevant studies reviewed found organic to be higher in many nutrients such as beta-carotene, the review concluded there were no important benefits from only 55 "high-quality" studies.

 

Dr Dangour called the group unfair, saying: "They obviously have their own point of view but in certain circumstances the way they tried to make their point has not been entirely appropriate. If you pull random numbers from the report and claim that they are significant, that is not helpful."

 

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, distanced the organisation from any personal attacks. But, in a sign that the public debate on the topic is unlikely to be quelled soon, he described the study as "bad science". "It is the nature of science that bad science doesn't last and I'm convinced that this is bad science," he said.

 

"Over the weekend, a number of scientists around the world have read the papers, and the fury that's building against the study from serious and reputable scientists is enormous."

 

The Soil Association has long suspected that the FSA is anti-organic, a view fuelled by criticism of the organic movement by the agency's first chairman, Sir John Krebs. Yesterday, the FSA stood by its research, describing it as "the most scientifically rigorous, independent review of research ever carried out in this particular area". "Opinion has, at times, been rather polarised," it added. "The FSA is neither pro- nor anti-organic food and recognises that people choose to eat organic for many different reasons."

 

One source in the organisation said that it had been surprised by the "near religious" tone of some of the criticisms of its research.

 

Dr Dangour insisted: "I'm not pro- or anti-organic. I'm a scientist and I pulled together a leading team of nutritionists for this research. We have done it entirely properly and correctly and it has been peer-reviewed."

 

He said he would have liked to have included new EU-funded research into organic nutrition by Newcastle University published in April last year – after the February cut-off date for his research period set by the FSA. Another report from the EU study, which has provisionally found that organic food is healthier, is due to be published in an academic journal later this year.

 

Dr Dangour said the existing evidence was robust enough to come to a judgement about the nutritional content of organic food and said the number of studies was better than for many other meta-analyses.

 

Professor Anthony Trewavas of Edinburgh University, an ardent critic of organic food, backed him, saying: "The trouble is that ideologues have propounded the idea that organic must be better for you simply because it's more natural. Nothing really could be further from the truth."

 

Conclusive proof about the differences between the two farming systems could come only from cohort studies of illnesses over a long period of time – like the 200 studies done to prove the link between diet and cancer – and these were unlikely to be funded, added the Professor Trewavas, an expert in plant biochemistry. "If you are eating the recommended diet of five portions of fruits and vegetables a day that is designed to saturate you in minerals and vitamins, there is no benefit from eating more," he said. "The fact is that the five a day from conventional farming is perfectly adequate for our health."

 

Nutritionists pointed out that, whatever the truth of the organic debate, Britons still ate too few portions of fruit and vegetables. Adults eat an average of 2.7 portions a day against a Government recommendation of five.

 

Helen Tracey, of the British Dietetic Association, said studies showed that some organic products, such as milk, were significantly higher in nutrients. "We don't always recommend organic as better," she added. "We say it is much better to have a good range of fruit and vegetables that you can afford."

 

Organic food: Is it worth it?

 

* Shoppers buy organic food for several different, sometimes overlapping reasons. Some say it is healthier on the basis that it contains extra vitamins and minerals, or because it uses fewer pesticides than other food, which can contain pesticide residies. Others feel organic is better for the environment, because organic farms do not use nitrogen fertiliser derived from petro-chemicals or they are richer in wildlife. Others say it tastes better.

 

* The FSA's 50-year review of scientific literature deals with only one of these reasons, albeit an important one: nutrients. The study concluded that there were no important health benefits of organic food in relation to vitamins and minerals. To the anger of some, the study did not address the controversy surrounding pesticide residues. The official Government position is that the vast majority of pesticide residues are safe for human health

 

* One significant drawback of the research is that its period of analysis meant that it did not take account of a four-year EU study, which has provisionally found that organic food is significantly richer in vitamins.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Wiring rural America carries hefty price tag

 

(BusinessWeek.com) – Reaching the most remote rural customers with high-speed Internet access can be prohibitively expensive. Consider the case of Hill Country Telephone Cooperative in Ingram, Tex. The small provider is undertaking a $57 million effort to install fiber and bring broadband service to a substantial part of its market, which covers 2,900 square miles, roughly twice the size of Rhode Island. Yet even with this effort, the provider will not be able to serve 543 remote households, about 5% of its market area, because it's simply too expensive. To do so would involve laying 522 miles of fiber optic cable at a cost of $20 million—an average cost of $37,000 per subscriber, according to Delbert Wilson, general manager of the provider, who testified in July before the House Agriculture Committee.

 

Government agencies are now considering the costs of providing high-speed Internet access to rural areas and which technologies might be the most cost-effective. The economic stimulus legislation has set aside $7.2 billion in grants and loans to encourage the installation of broadband networks, especially in rural regions that currently lack access. The applications for the first round of funding are due on Aug. 14. The Agriculture Dept.'s Rural Utilities Service and the Commerce Dept.'s National Telecommunications Information Administration will be vetting those submissions.

 

Service providers are expected to propose a range of schemes to deliver high-speed Internet through both existing infrastructure—such as telephone lines, cable-TV networks, or electric power lines—and through the installation of new fiber-optic cables going directly to residences, new wireless networks, or by using satellites. While the Federal Communications Commission has remained neutral on which technology is best for rural markets, it did say in a May report on rural broadband that it needed to be cost-effective to install, provide consistent performance at an affordable price, and be able to upgrade to higher speeds over time.

Going the Wireless Route

 

RidgeviewTel, a broadband service provider based in Longmont, Colo., has chosen wireless technologies, including so-called Wi-Fi and WiMax, to serve 54 rural markets in three states including Colorado, Illinois, and New York. One of the problems in rural markets is that existing broadband services are too expensive for the consumers there, says RidgeviewTel CEO Vince Jordan. RidgeviewTel offers service starting at $29.95 per month for 512 kilobits per second and $59.95 for 1 megabit per second. An antenna is installed on the roof of the house, directed at one of RidgeviewTel's towers, which receives the service and transmits that through a wire to the resident's computer or router. Jordan says his company has received an enthusiastic response to the offering.

 

Yet wireless technologies do pose limitations. Some wireless technologies can be easily blocked by mountains or forests and may not work well in some parts of the country, the FCC notes. And while wireless is often well suited for Internet access, it is not a great match for certain applications such as video services, says Teresa Mastrangelo, principal analyst at the Windsor Oaks Group, a market research and consulting firm specializing in telecommunications. "The bandwidth and the quality of the service can't be guaranteed," she says.

 

Mastrangelo says the agencies are giving applicants higher scores for technologies with faster speeds, but they also want services that can be installed relatively quickly. A good guide for the future, she says, is to look at the past loans the Rural Utilities Service has issued to service providers to build broadband networks. About 37% of those loans have gone to providers who run fiber optic cables directly to homes, 23% has gone to wireless services, another 22% to so-called digital subscriber line (DSL) technology, 17% to services running over cable networks, and 1% to broadband services that run over electric lines. Yet other analysts say that wireless has a much better chance in areas that aren't served by any type of broadband service because wireless technologies can be installed much more quickly. "My gut feeling is that there will be more wireless than anticipated," says Vince Vittore, principal analyst for broadband at research and consulting firm Yankee Group. Vittore doesn't include satellite services in that prediction because he says the cost of satellite equipment and service is currently too high for rural markets.

The Fiber Network Option

 

With speeds up to 100 Mbps, running fiber directly to homes is one of the fastest ways to deliver broadband service. The speed can easily be increased by changing the equipment attached to the network, which means it's unlikely to be made obsolete in the near future. Still, fiber networks are one of the most expensive options since installation is labor-intensive with construction crews often ripping up roads. To serve many rural residents in Vermont, for example, a 2007 report by the Vermont Public Service Dept. estimated it would cost about $4,000 per subscriber. Between 2004 and 2010, Verizon (VZ) plans to spend about $23 billion to build its broadband fiber network. This service is mainly deployed in non-rural areas, and consumers can get 15 Mbps download speeds for $49.99 per month and up to 50 Mbps for $144.95 per month.

 

Hill Country Telephone Cooperative in Texas says it costs about $9,250 per subscriber to serve 95% of its customer base with broadband Internet service using digital subscriber line technology. Subscribers can get up to 512 kbps for a monthly fee of $39.95 and up to 3 Mbps for $69.95. Hill Country is one of about 580 small and rural telephone cooperatives that are part of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Assn. Those members say the time has come to take a hard look at the costs of providing high-speed Internet access to rural America, says Tom Wacker, vice-president of government affairs at the association. "For years we've heard policymakers talk about the need for ubiquitous broadband deployment, but until now not a lot of attention was paid to the cost of it."

 

Return to Top

 

 

Syngenta acquires Monsanto sunflower business

 

(Wire Services) – Syngenta announced today the signing of an agreement to acquire from Monsanto its global hybrid sunflower seeds activities for a consideration of $160 million, on a cash and debt-free basis. The asset deal includes germplasm, development and breeding of hybrid sunflower seeds. The business recorded sales of $75 million in the 2008 fiscal year and has leading positions in key markets. Syngenta's sunflower seeds business is the global market leader with sales of more than $200 million in 2008.

 

"This acquisition is an excellent addition to our global sunflower business. These activities will further strengthen our position in Europe and Latin America, key regions for growing sunflowers, and expand the range of our offer to growers," said Davor Pisk, Chief Operating Officer Syngenta Seeds.

 

Sunflower oil is a high value vegetable oil which is low in saturated fats and mostly used in food applications. Globally, sunflowers are grown on around 24 million hectares. Major sunflower producing countries are Russia, Ukraine, Argentina, France and Central Europe. The sunflower seeds market is currently valued at around $700 million with more than 75% of the value coming from developing markets. The transaction is subject to the approval of regulatory authorities.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Industry uncertain of need for fruit veg promo board

 

(Progressive Grocer) – It’s still too early to tell if the industry needs a national fruit and vegetable research and promotion board, according to results of an electronic survey conducted by the Wilmington, Del.-based Produce for Better Health Foundation (PBH).

 

Indeed, the strongest indicator that more outreach is needed was the weak response to the survey, which was e-mailed to growers, shippers, processors and importers about the proposed board. Despite extending the survey deadline by an additional week, for a total of three weeks, the overall survey response rate was only 8 percent; of the 3,104 people whose opinions were requested when they received the survey, only 248 sent in responses.

 

“Between the low survey response rate and the fact that so many who did respond had not heard about the promotion board concept prior to the survey, PBH outreach about the proposed promotion board will continue prior to a second survey being fielded,” said Paul Klutes, director of brand sales for Eden Prairie, Minn.-based C.H. Robinson and chairman of PBH’s board of trustees. “As originally scheduled, the PBH executive committee will meet in late October to review next steps.”

 

The survey did offer some points of insight, however:

 

--Overall, 22 percent of respondents indicated they are in favor of the promotion board, while 31 percent said they are opposed and 47 percent are undecided about the concept

--Almost half of respondents (45 percent) said they had not heard about the promotion board proposal prior to receiving the survey

--Forty-six percent of respondents hold a recognized consumer brand and 42 percent already pay some form of promotional assessment -- but there were no notable differences in support/opposition to the promotion board among those who did or did not have a brand name and those who did or did not currently pay an assessment

--Those who sell a small assortment of fruits and vegetables, or only one type, are more in favor of the promotion board than those who sell many different kinds of fruits and vegetables

--No clear correlation can be made to a company’s size and its support or opposition to the promotion board concept

 

In 2008, PBH’s executive committee appointed an industry task force to look into past barriers to a national fruit and vegetable research and promotion board. After a year-long discussion, the task force presented its best thinking to PBH’s executive committee and this in turn was shared with the PBH board of trustees at its annual meeting in early April 2009.

 

The proposed objective of the promotion board is to increase consumption in the United States of all forms of fruits and vegetables for better health through implementation of a comprehensive health marketing, communications and education effort.

 

For more information about the National Fruit and Vegetable Research Promotion Board concept survey results, visit www.fvcampaign.org.

 

Return to Top

 

 

Fruit, veg crisis ruins French minister’s summer

 

(AFP via Yahoo! News Canada) PARIS – Six weeks after taking over one of the toughest posts in French politics, youthful agriculture minister Bruno le Maire has already seen his summer ruined by the fury of the powerful farming lobby.

 

At a time when the bulk of the French political class, even hyperactive President Nicolas Sarkozy, has quit Paris to relax on beaches and country estates, the 40-year-old former diplomat is sweating in his office.

 

On his desk is a big bill -- Brussels is demanding Paris force fruit and vegetable farmers repay a third of a billion euros (468 million dollars) in "illegal" subsidies -- and an even bigger political problem.

 

For Le Maire stands accused of failing in his first duty, at least in the eyes of Europe's biggest agricultural sector: acting as the French farmers' unquestioning champion in the battle for state and European hand-outs.

 

French farmers are already the biggest winners from the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, but between 1992 and 2002 fruit and vegetable growers also benefited from generous French national subsidies.

 

The European Commission has now declared these payments illegal -- as they created an unfair market for rival European producers -- and has given France until September 29 to say how it intends to get the farmers to repay.

 

Farmers expect their minister to take their side in any fight with Brussels, so Le Maire triggered a storm on Monday when he told Le Parisien newspaper: "We will have to launch proceedings to be reimbursed by the farmers."

 

With interest, the bill to refund the subsidies will come to around 500 million euros, a sum which farmers insist would bankrupt them and leave them at the mercy of competitors from Spain and Portugal with lower overheads.

 

They reacted with predictable fury, threatening wide-scale protest action from September if farmers are told to pay up. In the past this has led to roads being blocked and tonnes of produce dumped in front of government buildings.

 

"We won't pay," declared the National Federation of Farmers' Unions (FNSEA).

 

Brussels says that the French subsidies were supposed to be a short-term response to protect farmers from specific bad harvests, but were allowed to continue and become in effect a permanent source of income.

 

These pay-outs have ceased, but the outstanding bill remains.

 

"There's no question of the fact that this was unlawful aid."EU Commission spokesman Amadeu Altafaj told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday.

 

"It's going to be difficult to get back the aid from the producers but the prime responsibility lies with those who have actually set up a system which establishes a kind of parallel common market." he added.

 

"Please don't make the commission a scapegoat for a situation that was not created by Brussels."

 

Le Maire cut short his own holiday and invited farmers' leaders to his ministry on Tuesday, promising to help them with new sources of cash and to delay repayment of the illegal subsidies while a study is carried out.

 

He was also at pains to point out that he has the "total support" of both Sarkozy and Prime Minister Francois Fillon, amid criticism from across the political spectrum of his allegedly clumsy handling of the issue.

 

Lionnel Luca, a lawmaker from Sarkozy's ruling UMP, set the tone: "It's not for the agriculture minister to back down before Brussels' bureaucracy."

 

His colleague Jacques Le Guen added: "When you're minister for agriculture you must approach things in the spirit of defending farmers' interests."

 

The opposition was also quick to react.

 

"You can't just declare like that, to people who are already having great difficulty: 'You have to repay 500 million euros'," said Socialist deputy Genevieve Gaillard.

 

"He used to be minister for European affairs, and thus wants to be more European than anyone else. He spoke a bit too quickly," said Jean Glavany, a former Socialist agriculture minister.

 

Return to Top

 

 

End Transmission