Latest Updates :
    Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts
    Showing posts with label GMO. Show all posts

    GMO challenges: Ministry asked to call crucial meeting

    The Federal Law Ministry has finally given a ruling, asking Climate Change Ministry to convene a meeting of National Bio-Safety Committee for granting approval to the long-awaited 15 Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) of cotton varieties for commercialisation, sources revealed. GMO challenges Ministry asked to call crucial meeting 300x300 GMO challenges: Ministry asked to call crucial meeting

    Well-placed sources revealed to Business Recorder that Textile division had approached Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after the reportedly delaying tactics by the Climate Change Ministry for convening a meeting of NBC.

    Prime Minister on January 16, 2014 constituted a committee comprising Secretary Textile division, Secretary Law and Secretary Climate Change and directed them to hold a meeting within 10 days for resolving the issue. The committee met last week and Law division gave a ruling asking for convening a meeting of NBC to grant approval for commercialisation of cotton seeds, sources maintained.

    Certified cotton seed was becoming a serious issue as no BT certified cotton seed would be available for cultivation for the upcoming crop season due to non-approval of GMO cotton varieties by NBC which might encourage the seed-mafia, besides negatively impacting commodity production, official maintained.

    Official sources revealed that Pakistan being a signatory to the international Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety had to regulate GMO through establishing a Bio-safety system in the country. NBC and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (PEPA) have responsibility to evaluate, regulate and monitor GMO for lab or field research and their commercial scale production or marketing in the country.

    The NBC had not held its meeting since February 2011, which had delayed the regulatory process required to test and approve GMOs crops, said sources, adding that applications submitted by various public and private sectors organisations seeking approval of different GMO crops were yet to be reviewed by the NBC.

    Currently only transgenic crop commercially cultivated in Pakistan is cotton and eight BT varieties and one cotton Hybrid were approved by Punjab Seed Council (PSC) in April 2010 and commercialisation certificate was granted by NBC. In February 2012, PSC provisionally approved eight BT varieties (Tarzen-1, MNH-886, NS-141, FH-114, IR-NIBGE-3, CIM-598, Sitara-009, A-One) subject to the grant of commercialisation certificate from the NBC and TAC had to clear cases before consideration in NBC, sources maintained.

    BT cotton varieties in Pakistan, which were granted certificate for three years (now expired) included IR-3701, Neelum-121, FH-113, Sitara-008, MG-6, Ali Akbar-703, Ali Akbar 802, IR-1524 and GN Hybrid-2085. BT cotton varieties waiting for commercialisation certificate included Tarzen-1, VH-259, MNH-886, BH-178, NS-141, CIM-599, FH-114, CIM-602, IR-NIBGE-3, FH-118, CIM-598, FH-142, Sitara 009, IR-NIBGE-824, A-One IUB-222, Sayaban-201, Sitara-11M, A-555, KZ-181, Tarzan-2 and CA-12.

    Source: Business Recorder

    Our Food Supply: What You and Your Family Need to Know

    By Isabelle Beenan
    What does smoking have to do with our food supply?  Allow me to draw a little analogy between the conventional tobacco industry and the conventional food supply industry.
    There is no need to rehash the whole tobacco industry debacle, other than to point out that morality and health do not have a place in the tobacco industry’s continued business. Admitting to the addictive and destructive poisons added into commercial cigarette tobacco and the effects of such poison on human health took over 50 years!  The tobacco industry vehemently DENIED and LIED about the disastrous effects of their product and fought tooth and nail to perpetuate this destructive business TO THIS DAY! They continue to market to children and have made little if any modifications to the product (besides the warning labels) that WIPES OUT vast amounts of human lives every year.
    According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 5 million people die from the effects of smoking per year worldwide -with the projected stats sitting at an estimated 8 million deaths per year by 2030. Everyday, over 3800 people younger than 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette.
    I have to point out that from a purely selfish and immoral business/ profit standpoint, they’ve got it nailed down! Addiction to the product ensures repeat consumption from the consumer for life. And the targeting of ‘youngens’ works perfectly in replacement of those that die. It’s the perfect way to keep the consuming cycle going! The cycle extends even further when the consumers find themselves faced with disease or illness and have nowhere but pharmaceuticals to run to. (Oh and I’m sure the projected increase in population reduction over the next 17 years has nothing to do with big tobacco still being in business!)
    The only way to achieve vibrant health and clarity of mind is to ONLY consume ORGANIC FOOD.  Plain and simple.
    If I prepared a beautiful meal for your children and family and you saw me spray some glyphosate (look it up) on it, would you eat it?
    Would you serve it to your children knowing I just poisoned it? How about if you saw me add a few drops of sodium fluoride to their sippy cups?  Would you let them drink it?
    Your answers are probably no. So why do so many of us continue to consume these things? Is it because we don’t see ’what is going on in the kitchen’ so to say, that we turn a blind eye to what is going into the food and just take it and swallow?
    It took over 50 years for the tobacco industry conglomerates to admit after lengthy litigation to the disastrous effects of cigarette smoking on human health and to add warning labels to the packaging.  How long are we going to keep feeding poison to our families? For the next 50 years until big agriculture has been pressured and litigated enough that they have no choice but to fess up to their criminal negligence and issue a statement that the food *may* be toxic?  It’s time for us all to wake up and smell the genetically modified coffee.
    We are facing the same issue with the food supply here in North America. The good news is that the rest of the world seems to be ahead of us on this one and it’s time to catch up. This is made evident in the image shown below outlining the GMO labeling requirements globally. Thankfully, the organic food market has grown exponentially in North America as a result of the conscious awakening that is taking place towards the healing power of organic food and the dangers associated with GMO crops. Funny note: Monsanto (one of the largest producers of GMO agriculture) has banned GMO foods within their own cafeteria!
    MTB2_05
    It’s no coincidence that Spain, Germany and so many other countries require labeling or have outright banned GMO foods in their food supply. It is time for us all to wake up. Ignorance is not bliss. Public misinformation has definitely played a role in getting us into this mess but it is not the only factor at fault.
    Do you now see the correlation between the GMO food industry assault on the mass public and the tobacco industry assault on the mass public?
    I’ve heard that a picture is worth a thousand words which is why when it comes to something as important as the GMO food issue, I’ve included a pretty powerful image in this lesson.  This is what happens when rats are fed GMO Monsanto corn (which FYI all conventional food is basically engineered from a GMO corn base):
    MTB2_06
    After seeing what happens to rats when fed GMO, are you now still willing to feed it to your kids?  To yourself?  Look at the results, sure as humans we have a longer lifespan, so the visible effects may take longer to manifest than they did for the rats, but seriously are you willing to knowingly do that to your body?  Or inflict that kind of damage on your family?  Is that ‘happy’ meal box and commercial on TV distracting and cute enough to trick us into ingesting that rubbish on a daily basis? 
    There has been progress made in the food supply issue.  Many are awakening to the importance of preparing our own food and eating 100% organic food.  Whole Foods has even announced mandatory labeling of GMO foods in its stores as of 2018.  Tomorrow would be better. But still it’s progress. In the meantime, vote with your dollars.  You are voting for GMO if you buy GMO, plain and simple.  And WE will shift the supply to organic, when WE  start buying organic, which essentially is a vote for organic.  Do you understand now?  We are all connected, and a simple ‘switch’ in critical thinking and shift in consumerism is all it takes instigate change.squash this food beef!
    I could elaborate on this fundamental issue for days, but the bottom line is in my opinion you NEED to consume organic food exclusively in order to THRIVE and prevent disease.  It will contribute to thriving in all areas of your life.  Do your own research, the information is out there for you to access. Make the truth mainstream by sharing knowledge with your loved ones, and later the mainstream will catch up.  Turn off the TV for a couple minutes and SEEK knowledge instead of ignorantly swallowing whatever ‘they’ put on your plate.
    And if you didn’t know, now you do! And when you know better, you can CHOOSE to do better. How simple is that?  So get to it!
    SOURCES

    This article originally appeared here at Collective-Evolution
    Isabelle Beenen is a World Citizen. Independent Writer. Founder of the upcoming Unprogram Yourself TV and Unprogram Yourself Radio. BD for Street Queen Energy Shots. Problems= Opportunities!! I am re-creating my life!

    GMO Agriculture and Chemical Pesticides are Killing the Honeybees

    By Dr Joseph Mercola
    The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to protect honeybees from neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a lawsuit against the agency, filed by beekeepers and environmental groups. Said Paul Towers, spokesperson for the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), one of the groups involved in the lawsuit:
    “Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an ag system in trouble.”
    Lawsuit Maintains the Link Between Neonicotinoids and Honeybees Die Off Is ‘Crystal Clear’
    Neonicotinoid pesticides are a newer class of chemicals that are applied to seeds before planting. This allows the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it grows, where it is expressed in the pollen and nectar.
    GMO Agriculture and Chemical Pesticides are Killing the HoneybeesThese insecticides are highly toxic to Honeybees because they are systemic, water soluble, and pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive as well as to other species, such as songbirds.
    Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.
    The disappearance of bee colonies began accelerating in the United States shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market in the mid-2000s. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA allowed the neonicotinoids to remain on the market despite clear warning signs of a problem.
    It also alleges the EPA acted outside of the law by allowing conditional registration of the pesticides, a measure that allows a product to enter the market despite the absence of certain data.
    European Food Safety Authority Ruled Neonicotinoids ‘Unacceptable’
    The EPA’s continued allowance of neonicotinoids becomes all the more irresponsible in light of recent findings by other government organizations. Earlier this year, for instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report that ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.1 The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:
    Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development
    Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior
    The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals
    One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides. The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:2
    “…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”
    As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” Unfortunately, neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. In the US, virtually all genetically engineered Bt corn crops are treated with neonicotinoids.
    Serious Risks to Bees Already Established
    One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees.
    Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.
    Serious honeybee die-offs have been occurring around the world for the past decade but no one knows exactly why the bees are disappearing.
    The phenomenon, dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is thought to be caused by a variety of imbalances in the environment, although agricultural practices such as the use of neonicotinoid pesticides are receiving growing attention as more research comes in. As written in the journal Nature:3
    “Social bee colonies depend on the collective performance of many individual workers. Thus, although field-level pesticide concentrations can have subtle or sublethal effects at the individual level, it is not known whether bee societies can buffer such effects or whether it results in a severe cumulative effect at the colony level. Furthermore, widespread agricultural intensification means that bees are exposed to numerous pesticides when foraging, yet the possible combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure have rarely been investigated.”
    This is what the Nature study set out to determine, and it was revealed that bees given access to neonicotinoid and pyrethroid pesticides were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:
    Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae
    A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest
    A higher death rate among worker bees
    An increased likelihood of colony failure
    The researchers said:
    “Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.
    We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”
    Why the Food Supply Could Be Dependent on Urgent Action by the EPA
    The EPA acknowledges that “pesticide poisoning” may be one factor leading to colony collapse disorder,4 yet they have been slow to act to protect bees from this threat. The current lawsuit may help spur them toward more urgent action, which is desperately needed as the food supply hangs in the balance.
    There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.5 In the US alone, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated, major food shortages could result.
    There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.
    Four Steps to Help Protect the Bees
    If you would like to learn more about the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of the honeybee, check out the documentary film Vanishing of the Bees. If you’d like to get involved, here are four actions you can take to help preserve and protect our honeybees:
    Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)
    Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
    Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden or other natural habitat. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
    Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!
    Source: Global Research

    WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops

    The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any Euroxpean Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show. In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops. "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. "The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," said Stapleton, who with Bush co-owned the Dallas/Fort Worth-based Texas Rangers baseball team in the 1990s. In other newly released cables, US diplomats around the world are found to have pushed GM crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. Because many Catholic bishops in developing countries have been vehemently opposed to the controversial crops, the US applied particular pressure to the pope's advisers. Cables from the US embassy in the Vatican show that the US believes the pope is broadly supportive of the crops after sustained lobbying of senior Holy See advisers, but regrets that he has not yet stated his support. The US state department special adviser on biotechnology as well as government biotech advisers based in Kenya lobbied Vatican insiders to persuade the pope to declare his backing. "… met with [US monsignor] Fr Michael Osborn of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, offering a chance to push the Vatican on biotech issues, and an opportunity for post to analyse the current state of play on biotech in the Vatican generally," says one cable in 2008. "Opportunities exist to press the issue with the Vatican, and in turn to influence a wide segment of the population in Europe and the developing world," says another. But in a setback, the US embassy found that its closest ally on GM, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the powerful Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the man who mostly represents the pope at the United Nations, had withdrawn his support for the US. "A Martino deputy told us recently that the cardinal had co-operated with embassy Vatican on biotech over the past two years in part to compensate for his vocal disapproval of the Iraq war and its aftermath – to keep relations with the USG [US government] smooth. According to our source, Martino no longer feels the need to take this approach," says the cable. In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto. "In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention." It also emerges that Spain and the US have worked closely together to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws. In one cable, the embassy in Madrid writes: "If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow." The cables show that not only did the Spanish government ask the US to keep pressure on Brussels but that the US knew in advance how Spain would vote, even before the Spanish biotech commission had reported. • This article was amended on 21 January 2011. The original sited the Texas Rangers team in St Louis. This has been corrected.

    Are The USDA & FDA Influenced By Outside Agencies When Approving GMO (Zombie Food) Crops?

     

     
    Many corporations have gotten good at pulling the levers of government to tilt the odds in their favor, weakening regulations or securing perks, justified or not, to further their business interests. Economists use the term "regulatory capture" to describe the phenomenon whereby regulatory agencies serving the public instead end up advancing the interests of the companies they regulate. The main way companies accomplish this, economists theorize, is through lobbying and campaign contributions that convince legislators to pass laws in their favor.
    Once those laws are passed, however, it's less clear how companies sway the regulatory agencies that enforce them, which are more isolated from the direct effects of money or persuasion. "If a company can get enough farmers to support the product and they write letters, then the USDA is going to listen."
    "Traditional theories of regulatory capture cannot be used the same on agencies," contends Shon R. Hiatt, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School. "There are a lot of checks and balances and firewalls in place."
     
    So how are these agencies influenced?
    Hiatt, who grew up on a dairy farm in Idaho, began asking that question through research on the controversial issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural products that are genetically altered to increase yield, incorporate pesticide properties, or exhibit other beneficial qualities. (Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato was the first genetically modified product to come to market, in 1992.) However, the organisms also potentially carry health and environmental risks. After reading about these dangers, Hiatt wondered how the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) decides which GMOs to approve—and how agribusiness influences the process.
    Traditional theories break down
    As Hiatt began investigating, he found that traditional theories of capture such as lobbying and campaign contributions had little effect on whether any particular GMO was approved. Even more direct means of influence such as scientific articles funded by industry or letters written by industry-friendly congresspeople were equally ineffective.
    What did seem to affect the approval process, however, was the influence of third-party groups separate from Congress and industry, to which the department looked to justify its decisions.
    We may think the primary goal of agencies such as the USDA is to protect public health and safety; based on previous economic theory, however, Hiatt started with a different assumption—the primary goal of an agency is really to protect its own legitimacy. After all, it's the perception of an agency's effectiveness by Congress and the White House that will determine its budget and the career trajectory of its top officials. Of course, there is an overlap between the appearance of doing a good job and actually doing one. "If the USDA weren't doing its job, it would have very little legitimacy," says Hiatt. But that subtle difference in perspective also has the potential to distort the agency's reliance on pure science in its approval of GMOs.
    In his working paper "Lords of the Harvest: Third-Party Signaling and Regulatory Approval of Genetically Modified Organisms, written with Sangchan Park, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore, Hiatt identifies two types of legitimacy important to the USDA. The first, "consequential" legitimacy, is the perception that the process produces effective results; the second, "procedural" legitimacy, is the perception that it is fairly following the rules of the process. In both cases, the researchers found that the department looked to outside stakeholders in order to establish that legitimacy.
     
    In the case of consequential legitimacy, Hiatt and Park found a strong influence of farmers associations, such as the Iowa Soybean Association or the Kansas Corn Growers Association, which have the power to judge whether the GMOs are performing as intended without side effects. While these groups might have some industry members, they are separate from the agribusiness companies that are introducing GMOs. In cases where they supported a particular organism, there was an 84 percent increase in the likelihood of approval.
    "If a company can get enough farmers to support the product and they write letters, then the USDA is going to listen to that and say, 'We have to keep our stakeholders happy,' " says Hiatt.
    Other agencies influence approvals
    In the case of procedural legitimacy, the researchers found a strong influence from an unlikely source—the USDA's sister agency, the Food and Drug Administration. In the process of approving GMOs, companies have the option of consulting with the FDA to design nutritional labels for their products, earning a certificate of approval when they address FDA concerns. "They get these consultations and they are somewhat meaningless—they have little to do with the USDA approval process," says Hiatt.
    Regardless of that fact, however, Hiatt and Park found that a positive endorsement by the FDA had a huge effect on USDA approval, increasing the likelihood by 157 percent.
    Hiatt hypothesizes that in addition to receiving nutritional information on the GMOs, getting the green light from another agency might help insulate the department from criticism. "The USDA could be looking for a scapegoat," he speculates. "A positive signal from a fellow bureaucratic actor could diffuse the blame and provide political cover were the department to approve a faulty product."
     
    These effects seemed to be even higher during instances where there was significant controversy or uncertainty. In cases where there were protests by activists over a particular GMO, the researchers found that the overall percentage of approvals went down, but the degree to which a positive endorsement by farmers associations increased the likelihood of approval by 117 percent. Results were even starker during a congressional election year, in which a heightened political environment presumably casts more scrutiny on agency decisions.
     
    In those cases, farmers associations' influence increased the likelihood of approval by a whopping 400 percent. In addition to increasing the likelihood of approval, says Hiatt, third-party endorsements shorten the approval period. With farmers' approval, agricultural companies shaved about 162 days off the average approval time; with FDA consultation, they cut it down by about 257 days. That can translate to big bucks for companies.
    "The average seed company earns about $2 million per day of revenue for high- selling GMO crops such as soybeans," notes Hiatt. "That's a substantial amount."
    He stresses that these findings only concern the USDA, and only GMO approval; more research is necessary to determine whether the effect of third-party stakeholders on the USDA has an effect on other agencies or other policy issues. Conceivably, the same findings could hold true for other agencies: for example, the influence of doctors associations on the FDA drug approval process or consumer bureaus on rate increases by public utilities commissions.
    Regulators must recognize influencers
    To the degree these third-party stakeholders do have influence, it complicates the traditional models of regulatory capture. On the one hand, it is perhaps a relief for democracy if companies don't have such direct influence on the process. On the other, it opens up the possibility that firms could capture these third-party actors instead—for example, drug companies influencing doctors with incentives for prescribing drugs or sponsoring medical conferences.
    Perhaps the larger lessons from Hiatt and Park's research, however, concern regulators themselves. It's important that agencies such as the USDA realize their susceptibility to these outside influences, less they short-circuit their reliance on scientific procedures. That is just what happened with the approval of GMO alfalfa and sugar beets: both received positive signals from farmers and the FDA, and were approved by the USDA. But environmental groups protested that these products were approved without a full environmental review, successfully suing to take them off the market. (Alfalfa was subsequently reapproved after a multi-year delay. Sugar beets are still pending approval.)
    "Regulators need to be aware of the influence they are putting on these stakeholders and other regulatory agencies," says Hiatt. "In those cases, it's even more important they follow the same scientific procedures they usually do. If they find themselves cutting corners, they could run into problems." - Michael Blanding

    Who Sways the USDA on GMO Approvals?

     
    Many corporations have gotten good at pulling the levers of government to tilt the odds in their favor, weakening regulations or securing perks, justified or not, to further their business interests. Economists use the term "regulatory capture" to describe the phenomenon whereby regulatory agencies serving the public instead end up advancing the interests of the companies they regulate. The main way companies accomplish this, economists theorize, is through lobbying and campaign contributions that convince legislators to pass laws in their favor.
    Once those laws are passed, however, it's less clear how companies sway the regulatory agencies that enforce them, which are more isolated from the direct effects of money or persuasion.
    "If a company can get enough farmers to support the product and they write letters, then the USDA is going to listen."
    "Traditional theories of regulatory capture cannot be used the same on agencies," contends Shon R. Hiatt, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School. "There are a lot of checks and balances and firewalls in place."
    So how are these agencies influenced?
    Hiatt, who grew up on a dairy farm in Idaho, began asking that question through research on the controversial issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural products that are genetically altered to increase yield, incorporate pesticide properties, or exhibit other beneficial qualities. (Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato was the first genetically modified product to come to market, in 1992.) However, the organisms also potentially carry health and environmental risks. After reading about these dangers, Hiatt wondered how the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) decides which GMOs to approve—and how agribusiness influences the process.

    Traditional theories break down

    As Hiatt began investigating, he found that traditional theories of capture such as lobbying and campaign contributions had little effect on whether any particular GMO was approved. Even more direct means of influence such as scientific articles funded by industry or letters written by industry-friendly congresspeople were equally ineffective.
    What did seem to affect the approval process, however, was the influence of third-party groups separate from Congress and industry, to which the department looked to justify its decisions.
    We may think the primary goal of agencies such as the USDA is to protect public health and safety; based on previous economic theory, however, Hiatt started with a different assumption—the primary goal of an agency is really to protect its own legitimacy. After all, it's the perception of an agency's effectiveness by Congress and the White House that will determine its budget and the career trajectory of its top officials. Of course, there is an overlap between the appearance of doing a good job and actually doing one. "If the USDA weren't doing its job, it would have very little legitimacy," says Hiatt. But that subtle difference in perspective also has the potential to distort the agency's reliance on pure science in its approval of GMOs.
    In his working paper "Lords of the Harvest: Third-Party Signaling and Regulatory Approval of Genetically Modified Organisms, written with Sangchan Park, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore, Hiatt identifies two types of legitimacy important to the USDA. The first, "consequential" legitimacy, is the perception that the process produces effective results; the second, "procedural" legitimacy, is the perception that it is fairly following the rules of the process.
    In both cases, the researchers found that the department looked to outside stakeholders in order to establish that legitimacy.
    In the case of consequential legitimacy, Hiatt and Park found a strong influence of farmers associations, such as the Iowa Soybean Association or the Kansas Corn Growers Association, which have the power to judge whether the GMOs are performing as intended without side effects. While these groups might have some industry members, they are separate from the agribusiness companies that are introducing GMOs. In cases where they supported a particular organism, there was an 84 percent increase in the likelihood of approval.
    "If a company can get enough farmers to support the product and they write letters, then the USDA is going to listen to that and say, 'We have to keep our stakeholders happy,' " says Hiatt.

    Other agencies influence approvals

    In the case of procedural legitimacy, the researchers found a strong influence from an unlikely source—the USDA's sister agency, the Food and Drug Administration. In the process of approving GMOs, companies have the option of consulting with the FDA to design nutritional labels for their products, earning a certificate of approval when they address FDA concerns. "They get these consultations and they are somewhat meaningless—they have little to do with the USDA approval process," says Hiatt.
    Regardless of that fact, however, Hiatt and Park found that a positive endorsement by the FDA had a huge effect on USDA approval, increasing the likelihood by 157 percent.
    Hiatt hypothesizes that in addition to receiving nutritional information on the GMOs, getting the green light from another agency might help insulate the department from criticism. "The USDA could be looking for a scapegoat," he speculates. "A positive signal from a fellow bureaucratic actor could diffuse the blame and provide political cover were the department to approve a faulty product."
    These effects seemed to be even higher during instances where there was significant controversy or uncertainty. In cases where there were protests by activists over a particular GMO, the researchers found that the overall percentage of approvals went down, but the degree to which a positive endorsement by farmers associations increased the likelihood of approval by117 percent.
    Results were even starker during a congressional election year, in which a heightened political environment presumably casts more scrutiny on agency decisions.
    In those cases, farmers associations' influence increased the likelihood of approval by a whopping 400 percent. In addition to increasing the likelihood of approval, says Hiatt, third-party endorsements shorten the approval period. With farmers' approval, agricultural companies shaved about 162 days off the average approval time; with FDA consultation, they cut it down by about 257 days. That can translate to big bucks for companies.
    "The average seed company earns about $2 million per day of revenue for high- selling GMO crops such as soybeans," notes Hiatt. "That's a substantial amount."
    He stresses that these findings only concern the USDA, and only GMO approval; more research is necessary to determine whether the effect of third-party stakeholders on the USDA has an effect on other agencies or other policy issues. Conceivably, the same findings could hold true for other agencies: for example, the influence of doctors associations on the FDA drug approval process or consumer bureaus on rate increases by public utilities commissions.

    Regulators must recognize influencers

    To the degree these third-party stakeholders do have influence, it complicates the traditional models of regulatory capture. On the one hand, it is perhaps a relief for democracy if companies don't have such direct influence on the process. On the other, it opens up the possibility that firms could capture these third-party actors instead—for example, drug companies influencing doctors with incentives for prescribing drugs or sponsoring medical conferences.
    Perhaps the larger lessons from Hiatt and Park's research, however, concern regulators themselves. It's important that agencies such as the USDA realize their susceptibility to these outside influences, less they short-circuit their reliance on scientific procedures. That is just what happened with the approval of GMO alfalfa and sugar beets: both received positive signals from farmers and the FDA, and were approved by the USDA. But environmental groups protested that these products were approved without a full environmental review, successfully suing to take them off the market. (Alfalfa was subsequently reapproved after a multi-year delay. Sugar beets are still pending approval.)
    "Regulators need to be aware of the influence they are putting on these stakeholders and other regulatory agencies," says Hiatt. "In those cases, it's even more important they follow the same scientific procedures they usually do. If they find themselves cutting corners, they could run into problems."

    About the author

    Boston-based writer Michael Blanding is a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and author of The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World's Favorite Soft Drink.
     
    Support : agrinfobank.com | Oasis Agro Industries Pakistan
    Copyright © 2012. Agriculture Information Bank - All Rights Reserved
    Template Created by agrinfobank.com Team Published by agrinfobank Blog Team
    Proudly powered by Blogger