|
|
 |
" I heard it
through the
AgLine"
|
|
November 30, 2009
·
Organic
farming worse for Earth – Syngenta CEO
·
‘New’ bug
poses risks, benefits to Georgia crops
·
‘Seeds of change’
spur US antitrust inquiry
·
US shoppers
going green despite ailing economy
·
Online registration now open for World Ag Expo
Organic farming worse for Earth –
Syngenta CEO
(The
New York Times) – When Michael Mack, the chief executive of Syngenta, a
Swiss agribusiness giant that makes pesticides and seeds, hears people say that
organic food is better for the planet, he has one response: "Au
contraire."
"Organic food is not only not better
for the planet," he said, in an interview at The New York Times
building. "It is categorically worse."
Michael Mack, the chief executive of the Swiss agribusiness
firm Syngenta, says organic farming is “categorically worse” for the planet.
The problem, Mr. Mack said, is that organic farming takes up
about 30 percent more land, on average, than non-organic farming for the same
yield (though this varies by crop, of course). If the world wants to feed its
fast-growing population on existing cropland - and Mr. Mack is clear that he
does not want forests chopped down to clear more land for biofuel production,
let alone food - then productivity becomes a key factor, he said.
"If the whole planet were to suddenly switch to organic
farming tomorrow, it would be an ecological disaster," he said.
In terms of yields, he continued, organic food is the
"productive equivalent of driving an S.U.V."
Mr. Mack also addressed what he called the "mistaken
belief that natural is always better."
Pesticides that help crops to grow more efficiently in this
country, he argued, "have been proven safe and effective and absolutely
not harmful to the environment or to humans," and have been certified as
such by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The implication of not believing that pesticides are safe,
he said, is that you don't trust the government's findings.
"Once you go down that path, I don't know where the
guard rails are," he said.
Mr. Mack dismissed the notion that Syngenta, a company that
sold nearly $12 billion of seeds and "crop protection" technologies
last year, felt threatened by the organic movement.
His concern, he said, was to make people aware of the
limitations of organic food.
"It underplays the significance of agricultural
productivity," he said.
Return to Top
‘New’ bug poses risks, benefits to Georgia crops
(AP
via SFGate.com) – Researchers recently found an insect in north Georgia that has never before been reported in
the Western Hemisphere - and its arrival could
be both a blessing and a curse.
Some might celebrate the arrival of the kudzu-munching bug,
which could help control the invasive vine that drapes much of the South.
However, the bug also feasts on valuable crops like soybeans and other legumes.
As of Nov. 12, the insect was reported in nine north Georgia
counties, mostly on homes and other buildings with nearby kudzu patches.
Experts aren't sure yet how fast or wide the bug will spread or how damaging it
might be to crops.
"I think in time it's going to spread
significantly," said Dan Suiter, an associate
professor of entomology at the University
of Georgia's Griffin campus. "But only time will
tell."
Suiter and Lisa Ames, director of
the university's Homeowner Insect and Weed Diagnostics Lab, first received
specimens of the bug from pest-control companies and county agricultural
officials in mid-October. Neither had ever seen it before and both initially
misidentified it.
Just before Halloween, Dow AgroScience
field researcher Joe Eger visited the University of Georgia
campus, and Suiter happened to show him a specimen.
That turned out to be a lucky break.
"There are literally five people in the U.S. who could've identified this insect,"
and Eger was
one of them, Suiter said.
An insect enthusiast who has devoted a lot of time to
studying stink bug varieties, Eger quickly recognized the bug as a bean plataspid, a native of India and China that is commonly
called lablab bug and globular stink bug.
It was not good news.
The brownish bugs have a narrow head and a wide, rounded
back end and are a little bigger than the eraser on a pencil, Eger said. They waddle a bit when they walk
but fly quickly.
As a variety of stink bug, the insect gives off an odor when
threatened that Suiter describes as "a mildly
offensive, bitter smell."
Kudzu was introduced into the United
States from Asia at the
1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, according to the Nature Conservancy
Web site. From the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s, farmers in the South were
encouraged to plant it to prevent soil erosion. But in the warm Southern
climate, the invasive species quickly got out of control, growing at a rate of
up to a foot a day and smothering other plants.
It's unknown how the bug got into this country, Suiter said, adding that it could have hitched a ride in
someone's suitcase or on a plant sample.
When the new bug was identified, Suiter
reached out to see if any kudzu experts knew if the bug had ever been imported
from Asia to control the plant. However, he
was told it was ruled out because of its taste for soybeans.
The stink bug feeds on the seeds of the beans and other
legumes, and also sucks juices from plants. That leaves holes that can cause
the plant to wilt or allow bacteria to seep in.
As host plants die off in the cooler fall weather, the bugs
are looking for places to spend the winter, settling into attics and cracks in
wood siding on houses, Suiter said.
Jim Chase, an entomologist for pest-control company Terminix, said customers in several north
Georgia
counties started calling with complaints about the bugs several weeks ago, but
he wasn't sure how many confirmed cases they'd had. Some of the bugs were
discovered by Terminix agents who were called for
other problems.
The bug was discovered after most legume crops had been
harvested, and it has only been spotted in the northern part of the state so
far, while most farms are in the south. After waiting out the winter, the bugs
will likely come out again in the spring to lay eggs, Suiter
said.
And they can quickly hitch a ride to other parts of the
state on cars and clothing.
So far, no sightings of the bug have been reported outside
of Georgia,
but state and federal officials are closely watching the insects.
The Georgia Department of Agriculture is working with the University of Georgia and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to learn more about the bean plataspid
and what might be done to control it, Assistant Agriculture Commissioner James
Sutton said in an e-mail. Growers should be aware of the new pest and should
check their crops carefully, he wrote.
"While the insect is new to the U.S., early indications are that
our agronomic practices should be able to control it," he wrote.
"Eradication does not appear to be likely, as the insect appears to be
widespread and well established."
Return to Top
Seeds of change spur US antitrust
inquiry
(The
Washington Post) By Peter Whoriskey – For plants
designed in a lab a little more than a decade ago, they've come a long way:
Today, the vast majority of the nation's two primary crops grow from seeds
genetically altered according to Monsanto company patents.
Ninety-three percent of soybeans. Eighty percent of corn.
The seeds represent "probably the most revolutionary
event in grain crops over the last 30 years," said Geno
Lowe, a Salisbury, Md., soybean farmer.
But for farmers such as Lowe, prices of the
Monsanto-patented seeds have steadily increased, roughly doubling during the
past decade, to about $50 for a 50-pound bag of soybean seed, according to seed
dealers.
The revolution, and Monsanto's dominant role in the nation's
agriculture, has not unfolded without complaint. Farmers have decried the price
increases, and competitors say the company has ruthlessly stifled competition.
Now Monsanto -- like IBM and Google -- has
drawn scrutiny from U.S.
antitrust investigators, who under the Obama administration have looked more
skeptically at the actions of dominant firms.
During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did
not file a single case under antimonopoly laws regulating a dominant firm. But
that stretch seems unlikely to continue.
This year, the Obama Justice Department tossed out the
antitrust guidelines of its predecessor because they advocated "extreme
hesitancy in the face of potential abuses by monopoly firms."
"We must change course," Christine Varney, the
Obama administration's chief antitrust enforcer, said at the time.
Of all the new scrutiny by Justice, the Monsanto
investigation might have the highest stakes, dealing as it does with the food
supply and one of the nation's largest agricultural firms. It could also force
the Obama administration, already under fire for the government's expanded role
in the economy, to explain how it distinguishes between normal rough-and-tumble
competition and abusive monopolistic business practices.
Monsanto says it has done nothing wrong.
"Farmers choose these products because of the value
they deliver on farm," Monsanto said in a statement. "Given the
phenomenally broad adoption of these technologies by farmers, such questions
are normal and to be expected."
Even with the growing cost, farmers have embraced the
genetic modifications because they save work and enable them to cultivate more
land. The modified plants can stand up to the powerful herbicide glyphosate,
best known commercially as Roundup, allowing them to use the weedkiller not just before planting but also after the
crops have come up.
"Everybody wants it, and Monsanto is seeing what the
market will bear," said Lowe, 39. "People say that's capitalism. The
question is, where does capitalism meet
corruption?"
Before it jumped into biotechnology, Monsanto was already
one of the nation's largest chemical companies and had patented glyphosate,
bringing it to market as Roundup in the '70s.
The product kills just about all weeds, and for farmers it
served as a wonderfully effective herbicide. Instead of tilling the earth, they
could simply blanket it with Roundup. Because the chemicals in Roundup break
down quickly in the sun and rain, seeds could be planted shortly afterward.
It became one of the best-selling herbicides ever, and the
seed patents at the center of the antitrust allegations were built upon that
chemical's appeal.
If there was a practical drawback with Roundup, it was that
it couldn't be used after planting: Applying Roundup at that point would kill
the crops, too.
Scientists wondered: Could they develop plants that could
withstand Roundup?
The answer emerged, partly by accident, out of Louisiana muck.
Monsanto was producing Roundup at a plant in Luling, La., and the water and sludge in the waste
ponds around the plant were exposed to the chemical. It was the perfect place
to find organisms that could withstand the chemical's lethal effects.
After bacteria discovered in the pond sludge proved
resistant to the chemical, scientists isolated the gene that gave the bacteria
Roundup tolerance and placed that gene, known as CPS4, into soybeans, then
corn.
The resulting plants, called "Roundup Ready,"
represented a billion-dollar breakthrough and, as Monsanto sees it, a just
reward for its $1.5 billion investment in biotech research.
"During the same period, our competitors . . . largely
ignored biotech," the company said in a statement. "Monsanto took
risks our competition chose not to take."
Although farmers have grumbled about Monsanto's regular
price increases for Roundup Ready technology for seeds, it is DuPont, a
Monsanto rival, that has pressed the antitrust case.
Farmers and seed companies "are afraid to speak in
public, worried that they will become victims of retaliation," Thomas L.
Sager, DuPont senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.
"That's why it's so important that antitrust investigators move quickly --
to learn the truth before even more harm is done to America's farmers."
In court papers, DuPont argues that Monsanto has used the
dominance of the Roundup Ready brand to prevent competitors from bringing
innovations to market.
In its view, Roundup Ready is so popular that any new
biotech innovations must be designed to work with Monsanto's technology. But
Monsanto effectively freezes out the competition, it says, by making it
difficult for other companies to win a license to add their traits to
Monsanto-patented seeds.
"Monsanto has abused its unlawfully-acquired monopoly
power to block competition, thwart innovation and extract from farmers
unjustified price increases of over 100 percent in recent years," DuPont
argues in court documents.
A recent paper by Diana Moss of the American Antitrust
Institute broadened the antitrust case against Monsanto and called for legal
enforcement, citing "an almost intractable situation for
competition." The institute has taken donations from DuPont but does not
cater to its donors' viewpoints, officials said.
Monsanto says that the allegations of stifling competition
are "without merit" and that it broadly licenses its technology.
"We license Roundup Ready technology to hundreds of independent
seed companies and our major competitors," Lee Quarles, a company
spokesman said. The company won't license Roundup Ready without restriction,
however, because it wants to ensure that any other traits that are stacked onto
the Roundup Ready seeds actually function as promised, a precaution that
protects their brand and their customers, Monsanto officials say.
Out in the fields, meanwhile, there remains resentment and
wonder about the Monsanto-patented seed.
According to Moss, the price of seed from 2000 to 2008
outpaced the growth of crop yields by 2 to 4 percent a year.
Several farmers said the cost of Roundup Ready seeds seemed
to rise faster than their own margins. But that doesn't mean, at least just
yet, that they'll stop using them.
"Everybody likes Roundup Ready," said William
Layton, a grain farmer on the Eastern Shore.
"Maybe it costs a little more than we like. But everybody's going to keep
using it." For plants designed in a lab a little more than a decade ago,
they've come a long way: Today, the vast majority of the nation's two primary
crops grow from seeds genetically altered according to Monsanto company
patents.
Ninety-three percent of soybeans. Eighty percent of corn.
The seeds represent "probably the most revolutionary
event in grain crops over the last 30 years," said Geno
Lowe, a Salisbury, Md., soybean farmer.
But for farmers such as Lowe, prices of the
Monsanto-patented seeds have steadily increased, roughly doubling during the
past decade, to about $50 for a 50-pound bag of soybean seed, according to seed
dealers.
The revolution, and Monsanto's dominant role in the nation's
agriculture, has not unfolded without complaint. Farmers have decried the price
increases, and competitors say the company has ruthlessly stifled competition.
Now Monsanto -- like IBM and Google -- has
drawn scrutiny from U.S.
antitrust investigators, who under the Obama administration have looked more
skeptically at the actions of dominant firms.
During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did
not file a single case under antimonopoly laws regulating a dominant firm. But
that stretch seems unlikely to continue.
This year, the Obama Justice Department tossed out the
antitrust guidelines of its predecessor because they advocated "extreme
hesitancy in the face of potential abuses by monopoly firms."
"We must change course," Christine Varney, the
Obama administration's chief antitrust enforcer, said at the time.
Of all the new scrutiny by Justice, the Monsanto
investigation might have the highest stakes, dealing as it does with the food
supply and one of the nation's largest agricultural firms. It could also force
the Obama administration, already under fire for the government's expanded role
in the economy, to explain how it distinguishes between normal rough-and-tumble
competition and abusive monopolistic business practices.
Monsanto says it has done nothing wrong.
"Farmers choose these products because of the value
they deliver on farm," Monsanto said in a statement. "Given the
phenomenally broad adoption of these technologies by farmers, such questions
are normal and to be expected."
Even with the growing cost, farmers have embraced the
genetic modifications because they save work and enable them to cultivate more
land. The modified plants can stand up to the powerful herbicide glyphosate,
best known commercially as Roundup, allowing them to use the weedkiller not just before planting but also after the
crops have come up.
"Everybody wants it, and Monsanto is seeing what the
market will bear," said Lowe, 39. "People say that's capitalism. The
question is, where does capitalism meet
corruption?"
Before it jumped into biotechnology, Monsanto was already
one of the nation's largest chemical companies and had patented glyphosate,
bringing it to market as Roundup in the '70s.
The product kills just about all weeds, and for farmers it
served as a wonderfully effective herbicide. Instead of tilling the earth, they
could simply blanket it with Roundup. Because the chemicals in Roundup break
down quickly in the sun and rain, seeds could be planted shortly afterward.
It became one of the best-selling herbicides ever, and the
seed patents at the center of the antitrust allegations were built upon that
chemical's appeal.
If there was a practical drawback with Roundup, it was that
it couldn't be used after planting: Applying Roundup at that point would kill
the crops, too.
Scientists wondered: Could they develop plants that could
withstand Roundup?
The answer emerged, partly by accident, out of Louisiana muck.
Monsanto was producing Roundup at a plant in Luling, La., and the water and sludge in the waste
ponds around the plant were exposed to the chemical. It was the perfect place
to find organisms that could withstand the chemical's lethal effects.
After bacteria discovered in the pond sludge proved
resistant to the chemical, scientists isolated the gene that gave the bacteria
Roundup tolerance and placed that gene, known as CPS4, into soybeans, then
corn.
The resulting plants, called "Roundup Ready,"
represented a billion-dollar breakthrough and, as Monsanto sees it, a just
reward for its $1.5 billion investment in biotech research.
"During the same period, our competitors . . . largely
ignored biotech," the company said in a statement. "Monsanto took
risks our competition chose not to take."
Although farmers have grumbled about Monsanto's regular
price increases for Roundup Ready technology for seeds, it is DuPont, a
Monsanto rival, that has pressed the antitrust case.
Farmers and seed companies "are afraid to speak in
public, worried that they will become victims of retaliation," Thomas L.
Sager, DuPont senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.
"That's why it's so important that antitrust investigators move quickly --
to learn the truth before even more harm is done to America's farmers."
In court papers, DuPont argues that Monsanto has used the
dominance of the Roundup Ready brand to prevent competitors from bringing
innovations to market.
In its view, Roundup Ready is so popular that any new
biotech innovations must be designed to work with Monsanto's technology. But
Monsanto effectively freezes out the competition, it says, by making it
difficult for other companies to win a license to add their traits to
Monsanto-patented seeds.
"Monsanto has abused its unlawfully-acquired monopoly
power to block competition, thwart innovation and extract from farmers
unjustified price increases of over 100 percent in recent years," DuPont
argues in court documents.
A recent paper by Diana Moss of the American Antitrust
Institute broadened the antitrust case against Monsanto and called for legal
enforcement, citing "an almost intractable situation for
competition." The institute has taken donations from DuPont but does not cater
to its donors' viewpoints, officials said.
Monsanto says that the allegations of stifling competition
are "without merit" and that it broadly licenses its technology.
"We license Roundup Ready technology to hundreds of
independent seed companies and our major competitors," Lee Quarles, a
company spokesman said. The company won't license Roundup Ready without
restriction, however, because it wants to ensure that any other traits that are
stacked onto the Roundup Ready seeds actually function as promised, a precaution
that protects their brand and their customers, Monsanto officials say.
Out in the fields, meanwhile, there remains resentment and
wonder about the Monsanto-patented seed.
According to Moss, the price of seed from 2000 to 2008
outpaced the growth of crop yields by 2 to 4 percent a year.
Several farmers said the cost of Roundup Ready seeds seemed
to rise faster than their own margins. But that doesn't mean, at least just
yet, that they'll stop using them.
"Everybody likes Roundup Ready," said William
Layton, a grain farmer on the Eastern Shore.
"Maybe it costs a little more than we like. But everybody's going to keep
using it."
Return to Top
US shoppers going green despite ailing economy
(USA
Today via Reuters) NEW YORK — Despite the worst U.S. recession in decades, sales of
organic and sustainable products have continued to grow, experts say, with
shoppers willing to spend a few more dollars in a bid to become more green.
Supermarket sales of environmentally sustainable or
"ethical" products — from energy-efficient light bulbs to organic
produce — will rise about 8.7% in 2009 to nearly $38
billion, according to a recent study by Packaged Facts, a market research
provider.
President Barack Obama's commitment to tackle climate
change, a string of scandals over tainted food and effective marketing of
sustainable products have helped convince more Americans, whose environmental
credentials lag behind Europeans, to buy green.
"I've been reading about carbon footprints," said
Lindsey Hoffman, 24, as she selected organic lettuce at a Whole Foods Market in
Manhattan,
"and though I'd prefer to go to a farmer's market, this is better than
anything else."
"When I walked in I saw gorgeous asparagus, but as it's
$4 a bunch and flown in from Peru,
I stayed away," she said.
While sustainable and organic goods have traditionally
occupied the premium shelves of supermarkets, an increasing number of retailers
such as Wal-Mart and Safeway have expanded their offerings and some prices now
rival conventional products.
Some experts say the global economic crisis and the battle
against global warming have prompted consumers to think more about purchases —
both financially and environmentally.
"The financial crisis reminded people of the unintended
consequences of collective behavior," said Scott Bearse
of Deloitte Consulting, who added that once people go green, they generally
stay green.
Shelly Balanko at the Hartman
Group, a marketing consulting firm that specializes in sustainable goods, said
shoppers were realizing that green products offered better quality, along with
causing less harm to the environment.
She said buyers now thought, "'If I buy this, it will
be less wasteful and I'm going to get good value for my dollar."'
Some companies are appealing to these lifestyle changes,
such as Kimberly Clark, one of the largest manufacturers of paper towels and
diapers, which launched Scott Naturals, a paper products line using recycled
fibers.
"There is much more of an interest in this in the last
couple of years," said Kimberly Clark spokeswoman Kay Jackson.
Americans spent a total of $511.9 billion on groceries at
drugstores, supermarkets and mass retailers in 2008. So far this year shoppers
have spent 1.9% more than the same period a year ago.
Sales of goods specifically labeled organic rose 17% to
$24.6 billion in 2008, according to the Organic Trade Association.
"The more I read and hear about it, the more I'd like
to go completely organic, 100%," said Richard Drew, 35, a television
producer, as he shopped at a natural body care shop in Manhattan.
Return to Top
Online registration now open for
World Ag Expo
Tulare, Calif. — (AgPR) — Online
attendee registration
is now open for attendees who plan to attend World Ag Expo, Feb. 9-11 at
the International Agri-Center.
All attendees have the opportunity to
register online or at the registration center after entering the grounds for
the 43rd annual expo themed “Powering Global Agriculture.”
The electronic registration system allows attendees to save time at the gate.
Those who register online at worldagexpo.com through Feb. 1,
will receive $2 off daily admission. In addition, all of those who register
online will be automatically entered to win a new Yamaha Rhino, as well as other
registration prizes. World Ag Expo tickets are $10 online before Feb. 1 or
$12 at the gate.
Those who register online will be asked
to complete a brief questionnaire based on their demographic background and pay
admission fees. A confirmation page can then be printed immediately and an
official admittance ticket will be mailed directly to the attendee.
Once on the grounds each attendee will
have the opportunity to visit one of two registration centers (near Gate 2 and
on the corner of Median St.
and “Q” St.) where a volunteer will assist
them in printing their personalized badge. The badge will also come with a
ticket to West Coast Nationals Power Pulling Series on the same night (a $12
value). West Coast Nationals is scheduled to take place Feb. 9-10, gates open
at 4:30 p.m. and the event begins at 6 p.m. at the Tulare County Fairgrounds.
Since 2008, World Ag Expo has worked
with CompuSystems, an electronic registration
company, to implement electronic registration.
“The demographic information collected
by online registration is critical in providing our show staff with information
to better serve those who attend World Ag Expo,” said Jerry Sinift,
Chief Executive Officer of the International Agri-Center.
An estimated 100,000 attendees from 67
countries are expected to attend World Ag Expo this year. The expo is the
largest annual agricultural show of its kind with more than 1,600 exhibitors
displaying cutting- edge agricultural technology and equipment on 2.6 million
square feet of show grounds.
###
For more
information, contact Steven Knudsen, Communications Director of the
International Agri-Center at 559-688-1030, ext. 221
or by e-mail at steven@farmshow.org.
Return
to Top
End Transmission