Mycotoxin contamination is set to become a bigger problem as climate change evolves. In order to prevent food safety and food security, European farmers need adequate crop protection tools….

What do you do when you see a set of mould on the marmalade in your fridge? The unfortunate conventional household wisdom is to remove it, and then continue to eat whichever food product it affected. The misconceptions of consumers go further than that — in recent study conducted by the University of Copenhagen, researchers found that Danish consumers regard mould as a sign of “naturalness”, while products treated with pesticides as unhealthy.

This is a problematic misunderstanding of nature, perpetuated by decades of denigrating modern agriculture and the work of farmers. The use of fungicides and better storage units to prevent mould is not arbitrary and against the interests of consumers, quite in contrary. Moulds carry mycotoxins, which adversely affect human health.

Mycotoxins are naturally occurring toxic chemicals produced by moulds (fungi) that grow on crops. Wet weather, insect damage, and inadequate storage all promote the growth of mould on crops and increase the likelihood of mycotoxin contamination. Among the most common mycotoxins are aflatoxins, ochratoxin A (OTA), fumonisins (FUM), zearalenone (ZEN), and deoxynivalenol (DON – also known as vomitoxin), which can all be ingested through eating contaminated food, including dairy products (as infected animals can carry it into milk), eggs, or meat. One of the most dangerous are aflatoxins, which can affect corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, peanuts, and tree nuts, and can cause cancer. Most disconcertingly, up to 28% of all liver cancers worldwide can be attributed to aflatoxins, and its immunosuppressant features leave humans weakened against other diseases. The features have been known to modern science since the turn of the century.

In Africa, this is a deadly epidemic. Aflatoxin exposure is more deadly than exposure to malaria or tuberculosis, with 40% of all liver cancers in Africa being related to it. Mycotoxin contamination can occur through inadequate food storage, but more importantly, it occurs in the absence of the correct crop protection measures, including chemicals.

A recently published study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that a changing climate impacts these problems. “Some of the important factors that influence mycotoxin production – temperature, relative humidity and crop damage by pests – are affected by climate change”, writes the UN body. 

In order to prevent these fungi, farmers use fungicides. Fungicides are biocidal chemical compounds or biological organisms used to kill parasitic fungi or their spores. However, a large range of fungicides are being criticised by environmental groups, because of hazard-based risk-assessments. It is important to understand why they are wrong, by laying out the difference between “hazard” and “risk” in scientific language.

For instance, the sun is a hazard when going to the beach, yet beach-goers limit their exposure by applying suncream. A hazard-based regulatory approach would be to ban all beach excursions, in order to cut out the hazard completely. The same logic of hazard-based regulation is all too often applied in crop protection regulation, paired with a misunderstanding of the precautionary principle. In essence, hazard-based regulation advocates would endorse outlawing all crop protection methods that are not completely safe, regardless of the dosage. By ignoring the importance of the equation Risk = Hazard x Exposure, hazard-based regulation does not follow a scientifically sound policy-making approach, and would, in the long-run, ban all necessary tools available to farmers to guarantee consumer safety.

“Listening to science” needs to go both ways. We cannot face the challenges of climate change and simultaneously espouse the idea that all of modern agriculture is evil. Farmers need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and so do chemicals developed to prevent long-lasting diseases.

Originally published here.

The EU’s new “Farm to Fork” strategy pines for nature-friendly farming that’s completely disconnected from reality.

12:01 AM BILL WIRTZ

Most people look at a gluten-free, vegan, sugar-free, organic, non-GMO, palm oil-free candy being advertised in a store with bemusement. Yet in the United States, aisles in supermarkets, entire retail chains, are dedicated to these kinds of products, which over the years have attracted a loyal customer base. This is quintessentially American, because consumers have choices.

In Europe, critics of modern agriculture seek not to convince the public with slogans and brands; instead they’ve launched an open attack on the free choices of consumers. Almost all GMOs have been made illegal in Europe, and an increasing number of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides are being banned, despite scientific research showing their safety. This has led to rising food prices in Europe—while the EU average price increase is 2.5 percent a year, some member states saw up to 5 percent in pre-pandemic times, which outperforms inflation. More increases are to be expected if new plans come into motion.

The European Union’s executive body, the European Commission, recently published a new roadmap for agriculture, known as the “Farm to Fork” strategy. It is the cornerstone of fundamental agriculture reform, a move intended to foster sustainable agriculture. The strategy contains two flagship proposals: reducing pesticide use 50 percent by 2030 and increasing organic agriculture to 25 percent of total production by 2030.

On pesticide reduction, there is no ambiguity about the fact that this is a political ambition and not a scientific one. In the European Union, chemical crop protection products are approved by a government food safety agency. Requesting a reduction of 50 percent of products that are considered harmless in the first place has nothing to do with reasonable agricultural policy. 

The origins of the hostility towards modern agriculture are multifactorial. There’s the skepticism of food from the United States, which is regarded as unsafe, as well as the ready availability and multitude of choices, which are perceived as unhealthy consumerism.

One of the most cited reasons is that American chicken is treated with chlorine—which has scared many European consumers (despite them happily eating chicken on a visit to the United States). This attitude arose from the misconception that EU regulators had deemed the process of using chlorine unsafe. In reality, those regulators expressed concern that the process, which is safe, would lead poultry farmers in the U.S. to be more negligent in the keeping of their chickens.

Another key factor relating to the reduction targets on pesticides is how Europe increasingly views risk assessment. In the English language, the words “hazard” and “risk” are used interchangeably, yet in the scientific world, they mean different things. “Hazard” is the ability of something to cause harm, while “risk” is the degree to which it actually is harmful. For instance, the sun is a hazard when going to the beach, yet sunlight enables the body’s production of vitamin D and some exposure to it is essential. As with everything else, it is the amount of exposure that matters. A hazard-based regulatory approach to sunlight would shut us all indoors and ban all beach excursions, rather than cautioning beachgoers to limit their exposure by applying sunscreen. The end result would be to harm, not protect human health. A risk-based assessment would take into account the varying factors present in the real world.

The twisted logic of hazard-based regulation is all too often applied in crop protection regulation, where it creates equally absurd inconsistencies. For instance, if wine was sprayed on vineyards as a pesticide, it would have to be banned under EU law, as alcohol is a known and quite potent carcinogen at high levels of consumption. All this is rationalized through an inconsistent and distorted application of what Europeans call the “precautionary principle.” Needless to say, Europe is practically the only region in the world that governs food standards in this fashion, and many countries have complained about this before the World Trade Organization.

EU institutions have a rigid and fundamentalist view on nature and agriculture. In a speech in May, the EU’s commissioner for environment talked about the European food strategy in a nature-based way: “When you have adequate protection, properly enforced, nature pays you back.” He added, “This is a strategy for reconnection with nature, for helping Europe to heal.” To do so, Brussels endorses organic agriculture and “agro-ecological practices.” The science (or lack thereof) of “agro-ecology” deserves an article all its own, but in essence, it means no pesticides, no genetic engineering, no synthetic fertilizers, and in many cases no mechanization. This method of farming has been described as “peasant farming” and “indigenous farming,” and rejects all the progress of modern agriculture. According to its own proponents, it reduces agricultural output by 35 percent on average.

With the current recession, one wonders what the consequences of these radical changes will be in Europe. U.S Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue has been very present in European media, reminding authorities that modern farming is a great asset, that their choices will lead to bad outcomes, and that a trade deal across the Atlantic will be virtually impossible if Europe diverges even more from reasonable norms. 

He’s right: the view of modern agriculture as a destroyer of nature is seriously flawed. Stanford University researchers have found that if we farmed in the same manner as 60 years ago, an area equal to the entire land mass of Russia—three times the size of the Amazon, four times that of the European Union—would have to be cleared of forest and natural habitat and brought into agricultural production. Adding to that, high-yield farming has avoided 161 gigatons of carbon dioxide since 1961, while research from the United Kingdom has shown that moving all current agriculture to organic farming would increase greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70 percent.

The black-and-white view from which organic is good while conventional agriculture destroys ecosystems is a mere caricature of the reality of farming. If EU member states do not reject the “Farm to Fork” strategy, then they’ll lead their continent down a dangerous path towards less food security and higher prices. That isn’t in the interests of nature, farmers, or consumers.

Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English, French, and German. His work has appeared in Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, CityAM, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Die Welt.

Originally published here.

Auch im Interesse der Verbraucher sollte die EU ihre Haltung zur Gentechnik überprüfen.

In den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten hat Europa beschlossen, in der Agrarpolitik seinen eigenen Weg zu gehen. Während sowohl Nord- und Südamerika als auch Japan zu einer noch stärker technologiegetriebenen modernen Landwirtschaft übergegangen sind, ist Europa rückwärts gegangen und verbietet immer mehr wissenschaftlich erwiesene Fortschritte in der Landwirtschaft. Bei den jüngsten Handelsgesprächen haben amerikanische Spitzendiplomaten den ordnungspolitischen Rahmen in der EU wiederholt als anachronistisch verspottet.

„Wir müssen Beschränkungen für innovative Ansätze und Technologien beseitigen (…) und den Willen haben, unseren Bürgern die Wahrheit über Technologie, Produktivität und Sicherheit zu sagen.“Das sind die Worte des amerikanischen Landwirtschaftsministers Sonny Perdue. Er argumentiert, dass die Beschränkungen der Europäischen Union für moderne Agrartechnologie nicht nachhaltig sind und künftige Handelsabkommen stark einschränken. Ob er nun recht hat oder nicht, hängt nicht davon ab, wie sehr man die Vereinigten Staaten liebt oder hasst, sondern davon, wie sehr man günstige Lebensmitteln wertschätzt.

Betrachten wir die Situation: Sowohl die konventionelle als auch die ökologische Landwirtschaft kämpfen mit Schädlingen. Diese muss man loswerden, um Ernährungssicherheit und Preisstabilität für die Verbraucher nicht zu gefährden. Beide benötigen Chemikalien als Teil ihrer Pflanzenschutzmittel, auch wenn Käufer von Bio-Produkten das sicher anders einschätzen würden. Wie Afrika zeigt, können Heuschreckenplagen verheerende Auswirkungen auf die Ernährungssicherheit haben und die Klimawissenschaft ermöglicht es uns, zu erkennen, dass bestimmte Schädlinge von weit entfernten Orten früher als später auf unsere Felder kommen werden, was Insektizide erforderlich macht. Um Pilze und tödliche Mykotoxine zu vermeiden, setzen wir Fungizide ein.

Politisch gesehen sind diese chemischen Pflanzenschutzmittel nicht populär, da immer mehr Umweltschützer Politiker dazu drängen, sie zu verbieten. Dies hat das politische Spektrum von links gegen rechts verlassen und ist auf beiden Seiten gleich verteilt. Leider spielt in der Debatte nur eine untergeordnete Rolle, ob diese Chemikalien von nationalen und internationalen Behörden für Lebensmittelsicherheit als sicher eingestuft wurden oder nicht.

Entscheidend scheint zu sein, dass moderne Pflanzenschutzmittel als nicht nachhaltig bezeichnet werden. Nachhaltigkeit ist jedoch unzureichend definiert und dient daher als Vorwand, um bestehende Missverständnisse über die Landwirtschaft zu bestärken. Wenn überhaupt, dann sollte Nachhaltigkeit auf einer modernen und innovativen Landwirtschaft beruhen, die den Bedürfnissen der Umwelt, der Lebensmittelsicherheit und wettbewerbsfähigen Preisen für Verbraucher gerecht wird.

Mit Hilfe der Gentechnik haben Wissenschaftler einen Weg gefunden, den Einsatz traditioneller Pflanzenschutzmittel zu reduzieren und gleichzeitig Ernteerträge zu steigern. Wieder einmal versperrt politisches Misstrauen gegenüber agrotechnischen Innovationen den Weg in die Zukunft. In diesem Fall durch die GVO-Richtlinie von 2001, die praktisch die gesamte Gentechnik für die Zwecke der Nutzpflanzen verbietet.

Der Klimawandel verändert die Lebensmittelproduktion, ob wir es wollen oder nicht. Spezifische genetische Veränderungen ermöglichen es uns, präzise Veränderungen im Lebensmittelbereich zu entwickeln. Die Vereinigten Staaten sind zusammen mit Israel, Japan, Argentinien und Brasilien führend in der Welt mit freizügigen Regeln für Genmanipulationen. Diese neuartige Technologie kann Lebensmittelsicherheit und Lebensmittelpreise für alle Verbraucher verbessern.

Die Regeln der EU sind im Vergleich dazu 20 Jahre alt und nicht in der Wissenschaft verwurzelt, wie eine wachsende Zahl von Forschern jetzt erklärt. Die Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, die Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften und die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft schreiben beispielsweise folgendes zur Anwendung des Vorsorgeprinzips in der EU: „Allerdings gehen (wir) davon aus, dass die verfahrenstechnischen Fortschritte der molekularen Züchtung nach wissenschaftlichem Erkenntnisstand keinen Vorsorgeanlass darstellen können, insbesondere da sich der ursprüngliche Risikoverdacht des EU-Gesetzgebers von 1990 selbst bei der klassischen Gentechnik nicht bewahrheitet hat und weiterhin nur hypothetische Risiken diskutiert werden.“

Eine Änderung unserer Regeln für neue Züchtungstechnologien sollte im Interesse der europäischen Verbraucher erfolgen. Europa sollte bei der landwirtschaftlichen Innovation eine Vorreiterrolle übernehmen und nicht Lehren von denVereinigten Staaten erteilt bekommen. Wir sollten Innovation zulassen und dann weltweit führend in ihr sein.

Frederik Roeder ist Geschäftsführer des Consumer Choice Centers, einer privat finanzierten weltweiten Verbraucherorgani- sation mit Sitz in Washington D.C., die für Wahlfreiheit, Innovation, Datenschutz und Wissenschaft einsteht.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

El grupo internacional de defensa del consumidor señaló que el Parlamento Europeo ha autorizado recientemente una excepción temporal de las normas sobre ingeniería genética, para permitir que el desarrollo de la vacuna Covid-19 se beneficie de la tecnología de OGM.

Hasta hace unos meses, la UE era tajante en su prohibición sobre el uso de OGM en todo ámbito. 

La posición de la UE sobre los organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM) ha sido criticada por el Consumer Choice Center, que lo ha calificado de “doble estándar inexplicable”.

En una declaración, citada por el grupo de consumidores, el Parlamento Europeo dijo: “La excepción facilitará el desarrollo, la autorización y, en consecuencia, la disponibilidad de vacunas y tratamientos de Covid-19”.

En respuesta a esto, el analista de políticas senior del Centro de Elección del Consumidor Bill Wirtz dijo que estaba “desconcertado por el cambio de opinión” de los miembros del parlamento, y agregó:

Si hubieras sugerido algo así hace seis meses, algunos legisladores se habrían enfurecido.

“Ahora que Europa se enfrenta a la mayor emergencia de salud en nuestra vida, la innovación científica se necesita desesperadamente”.

Continuando con el tema de largo ruido, el analista dijo:

“La desafortunada realidad es que los OGM han sido tan altamente politizados que nos hemos alejado de una conversación sobria basada en evidencia.

Ahora es políticamente viable permitir la innovación científica para combatir este virus, pero en el área de la agricultura, todavía nos enfrentamos a un callejón sin salida. Si es seguro para las vacunas, ¿no deberíamos confiar también en la montaña de evidencia científica de que es seguro en los alimentos?

“Necesitamos repensar la directiva de 2001 sobre los OGM, que ha estado a la vanguardia de la desaceleración de Europa en ingeniería genética”, afirmó Wirtz.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The EU’s stance on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been criticised by the Consumer Choice Center, which has labelled it an “inexplicable double standard”.

The international consumer advocacy group noted that the European Parliament has recently authorised a temporary derogation from rules on genetic engineering, to allow Covid-19 vaccine development to benefit from GMO technology.

In a statement, quoted by the consumer group, the European Parliament said: “The derogation will facilitate the development, authorisation and consequently availability of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments.”

In response to this, the Consumer Choice Center’s senior policy analyst Bill Wirtz said he’s “puzzled by the change of heart” of members of the parliament, adding:

If you had suggested anything of the sort six months ago, some lawmakers would have been furious.

“Now that Europe is facing the largest health emergency in our lifetime, scientific innovation is desperately needed.”

Continuing on the long-rumbling matter, the analyst said:

“The unfortunate reality is that GMOs have been so highly politicised that we have moved away from a sober evidence-based conversation.

It is now politically viable to allow for scientific innovation to fight this virus – but in the area of agriculture, we are still facing a dead end. If it is safe for vaccines, then shouldn’t we also trust the mountain of scientific evidence that it is safe in food?

“We need to rethink the 2001 directive on GMOs, which has been at the forefront of slowing Europe down on genetic engineering,” Wirtz claimed.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Abordarea agriculturii de catre UE – un „Muzeu al Agriculturii”

iunie 16, 2020agrimanet

În ultimele două decenii, Europa a decis să meargă de una singura în politicile agricole. În timp ce atât America de Nord, cât și America de Sud și, de asemenea, Japonia s-au mutat într-o agricultură modernă și mai mult bazată pe tehnologie, Europa a mers înapoi și continuă să interzică progresele și metodele noi din agricultură. În discuțiile comerciale recente, diplomații americani de top au râs în mod repetat de cadrul de reglementare al UE, considerându-l invechit.

„Trebuie să eliminăm constrângerile pentru adoptarea de noi abordări și tehnologii inovatoare, inclusiv restricții de reglementare excesiv de greoaie și inutile.”

Acestea au fost cuvintele secretarului agriculturii din SUA, Sonny Perdue, într-o declaratie publicată de Euractiv în februarie. Într-o manieră ceva mai puțin diplomatică, ambasadorul SUA în Regatul Unit, Woody Wilson, a caracterizat abordarea agriculturii de catre UE ca fiind un „Muzeu al Agriculturii”.

Atât Perdue, cât și Wilson susțin că restricțiile Uniunii Europene asupra tehnologiei agricole moderne nu sunt durabile și limitează sever acordurile comerciale viitoare.

A judeca dacă acestea sunt corecte sau nu, nu este legat de cât de mult iubești sau urăști Statele Unite, ci cât de mult îți place sau urăști stabilitatea prețurilor la produsele alimentare. Noi, europenii, putem fi judecătorii acestui lucru.

Să evaluăm situația așa cum este. Atât agricultura convențională, cât și cea ecologică se ocupă de dăunătorii de care trebuie să scape pentru a nu pune în pericol securitatea alimentară și stabilitatea prețurilor pentru consumatori. Ambele necesită substanțe chimice ca parte a instrumentelor de protecție a culturilor.

Așa cum se intampla in Africa, invazia de lăcuste pot fi devastatoare pentru securitatea alimentară, iar știința climatică ne permite să detectăm că anumiti dăunători vor veni din locuri îndepărtate spre zonele noastre mai devreme, ceea ce face ca insecticidele să fie necesare. Pentru a evita ciupercile și micotoxinele mortale, folosim fungicide.

Din punct de vedere politic, aceste instrumente de protecție a culturilor chimice nu sunt populare, deoarece grupuri din ce în ce mai mari si mai radicali de ecologiști îi împing pe politicieni să le interzică.

Ceea ce pare să conteze este că instrumentele moderne de protecție a culturilor sunt etichetate ca fiind nesustenabile. Cu toate acestea, sustenabilitatea este insuficient definită și, astfel, a servit drept scuză pentru a îmbogăți concepțiile greșite existente despre agricultură.

Sustenabilitatea ar trebui să se bazeze pe o agricultură modernă și inovatoare

Sustenabilitatea ar trebui să se bazeze pe o agricultură modernă și inovatoare care să răspundă nevoilor mediului, siguranței alimentare, securității alimentare și prețurilor competitive pentru consumatori. Aceste instrumente sunt disponibile astăzi.

Prin inginerie genetică, oamenii de știință au găsit o modalitate de a reduce utilizarea produselor tradiționale de protecție a culturilor, crescând totodată randamentul culturilor. Însă încă o dată, o suspiciune politică față de inovația agro-tehnologică reprezintă o frână, în acest caz prin Directiva OMG din 2001, care practic interzice toată ingineria genetică în scopul culturilor.

Schimbările climatice modifică modul în care producem alimente indiferent dacă le dorim sau nu. Bolile rare sunt tot mai prezente.

Modificările genetice specifice ne permit să depășim mutațiile aleatorii ale trecutului și să dezvoltăm schimbări precise în domeniul alimentelor.

Statele Unite, împreună cu Israel, Japonia, Argentina și Brazilia, conduc lumea cu reguli permisive pentru editarea genelor. Această nouă tehnologie poate îmbunătăți speranța de viață, securitatea alimentelor și prețurile produselor alimentare pentru toți consumatorii. Prin comparație, regulile UE au 20 de ani și nu sunt bazate pe știința actuală.

Vor americanii să concureze cu fermierii europeni și să vândă cantități din ce în ce mai mari de mâncare pe acest continent?

Acest lucru nu este doar în mod evident, dar este, de asemenea, reciproc. Dacă am investi cât mai mult timp în demonizarea produselor americane si în promovarea produselor europene peste hotare, atunci fermierii noștri s-ar extinde masiv pe piața americană cu produse superioare. În acest scenariu, consumatorii își păstrează opțiunile de hrană, iar comercianților cu amănuntul și producătorilor trebuie să li se solicite etichetarea originii alimentelor.

Cel mai mult, modificarea regulilor noastre privind noile tehnologii editarea genelor ar trebui să se facă în interesul consumatorilor europeni mai mult decât în ​​cazul exportatorilor americani.

Europa ar trebui să conducă calea inovării agricole și să dea lecții pentru inovare, nu să primeasca lectii din Statele Unite. În interesul consumatorilor europeni, ar trebui să permitem inovația, iar apoi să fim un lider global în aceasta.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org