HERE COMES NON-GMO FOOD CROPS-A CHALLENGE TO GMO LOBBY

USA, considered the capital of GM foods, seems to be nurturing many farmers within their borders who make money by raising non-GM crops mainly for export. Of course these farmers are not wedded to natural crops, not tampered with by man but opportunities from abroad to buy non-GM crops at higher prices are too tempting for them to get into this area. Many Asian countries, especially Japan, are apprehensive of GM crops and are scrupulously avoiding cultivation and consumption of such crops by their citizens. Probably they are expecting that GMO technology will go through the safety and hazard analysis by impartial scientists to give a verdict regarding their absolute harmlessness. Though this may or may not happen in the near future, American farmers engaged in growing non-GM crops are reaping bounties by sending them to Asia. Here is a take on this interesting subject.

"When GMOs came on the scene about 20 years ago, it turned out that his Japanese customers didn't want them. Japanese food companies were suspicious of the new technology and didn't want to risk a hostile consumer reaction. So Clarkson tweaked his supply chain to deliver what the Japanese wanted. He made sure his farmers grew varieties that weren't genetically engineered. The non-GMO niche was born. He wasn't the only one doing this. Clarkson shows me, on a wall map, the concentration of farmers who supply the Japanese market. Many are along the Illinois and Ohio rivers, with easy access to ships heading toward Asia. There are thousands of them, and they're now happy to supply customers in the U.S., too. "U.S. buyers often think that we're starting from scratch" with non-GMO grain, Clarkson says. "Well, we're not. We're starting from millions of bushels of demand that are in place and being satisfied on a regular basis for Asian clients." Most of these farmers don't have any philosophical objection to genetic engineering. In fact, most of them grow both GMO and non-GMO crops. Allen Williams, who grows grain for Lynn Clarkson, says the choice to grow non-GMO grain simply comes down to money. "You're just trying to improve your profit," he says. "There's not a lot of ways to do that, if you're growing commodities. This is one way to do that." He'll sell his non-GMO grain for 10 percent or 15 percent more than the standard market price. But there are complications. Some of the extra income gets eaten up by extra costs. He'll spend more money on pesticides, for instance, for his non-GMO soybean fields. He also has to make sure the grain he sends to Clarkson Grain doesn't contain any traces of his GMO crops. So when he finishes harvesting one of his GMO fields, he has to spend hours cleaning out his combine. "You know, time is of the essence during harvest," he says. "So to take time during harvest to clean out equipment and storage locations and transportation equipment is very expensive for a farmer."

What is intriguing is the logistics involved in growing GM and non-GM crops together without the latter getting contaminated with GMO traces. It appears these farmers are taking extreme precautions to prevent cross contamination because Japanese buyers are very stringent in their specifications. In the mean time the ding-dong battle between GMO lobby and anti-GMO activists is becoming more and more acrimonious with each side marshaling data to reinforce their respective assertions. It is the consumer who is caught between the two extremes not able to decide whether to buy or shun GM foods, though there is hardly any choice in a country like USA where GM foods practically monopolized the market leaving very little choice to the citizens there.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MAKING RICH FARMERS RICHER-NEW AMERICAN POLICY

Agricultural subsidies doled out to rich farmers in some of the wealthy countries are considered an anachronism and in spite of world wide condemnation of such practices, there does not seem to be any sign of this incongruous policy being curtailed. United States of America and the European Union countries are the major culprits in perpetuating such distorted policies. Where else except in the US farmers are paid to leave their land fallow, fearing the adverse impact a surplus production will have on the market prices of commodities? Now comes the report that the government there is debating the feasibility of new ways of subsidizing its farmers to insure them against crop failures or low market price realization for their crops. It is interesting that even some of the members of the farming community feel that such government hand out is not necessary for those engaged in honest farming. Of course genuine problems like unexpected crop failure or disasters affecting crop yields must be factored in when agriculture farming is planned and any financial help to cushion the insurance premium is understandable. How far the planned financial aid to the agricultural farms will materialize depends on the political flux this country is going through. However, most WTO members, especially the poor and the developing world, have been fighting this perverted policies of the rich nations with very little success. On the contrary the political classes in the developed economies are contriving to perpetuate this distortion by increasing the dole outs through the tax payers' money, probably for furthering their vested interests. Here is a take on this developing story.    

"Advocates, including farm interest lobbyists and lawmakers with a long history of creating and protecting benefits, argue that the new program would save Washington money by replacing a longstanding one costing $5 billion a year, known as direct payments, that pays owners of farmland a set amount regardless of whether they have planted crops. Crop insurance has existed for decades, with the government now spending about $7 billion a year to pay about two-thirds of the cost of farmers' premiums. Under the federal program, farmers can buy insurance that covers poor yields, declines in prices or both. On Tuesday, the Senate began debate on a farm bill, passed by the Agriculture Committee in April, that would set up another crop insurance subsidy, costing $3 billion a year, to cover any losses farmers suffer, known as deductibles, before their crop insurance policies kick in. The change from the existing direct payment program to the crop insurance subsidies as the primary safety net for farmers means that "payments are going to people who are actually farming," Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan and chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, said Wednesday. The Senate measure would cut about $23 billion in spending over the next 10 years, though that is far less than the Obama administration wanted. Crop insurance supporters say insurance programs provide an important safety net for farmers, who are subject to the whims of weather, pests and volatile markets. "Cuts in the crop insurance program would reduce the effectiveness of the most important risk-management tool farmers have," said Sam Willett, senior director of public policy at the National Corn Growers Association. Even some farmers argue that the subsidies are already generous to agribusinesses, especially with the government facing large deficits. Jim Faulstich, a farmer and rancher in Highmore, S.D., said he was in favor of farmers having crop insurance, but added that the insurance should not be used to make money at taxpayer expense. "If we as farmers expect taxpayers to support premium subsidies, it's only fair that we grow on land that is capable of supporting it," he said. "Could some of this land be profitable without the crop insurance subsidy? I think not."

Theoretically what any nation does within its borders is no body else's business but can such an isolationist policy work in a globalized community where cooperation and mutual help are the watch words. With what cheek countries like America, the EU, Japan and others with high per capita income, can ask the poorer countries to lower their import tariffs for industrial products manufactured by them so that their domestic manufacturing sector flourishes? Don't they know that cheap food grains produced in their countries through massive subsidies depress the global prices of many of them and hurt many countries depending on export of their surplus commodities for sustenance? With what conscience the American citizens go to sleep each day when millions of poor people starve around the world because of the subsidies doled out by their insensitive politicians? What is the use of billions of dollars worth of surplus food grains, being channelized to African countries in the name of food aid  if the huge subsidies received by the American farmers effectively kill the local agriculture? If WTO cannot stop this patently unjust policies of the rich nations, it has no right to exist any more!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com