They don’t know if they can stop it, but they do aim to try.

“We know at the end of the day it’s going to destroy the condiment mustard industry in Canada, that that’ll be the end of it,” said Rick Mitzel, chief executive officer of Mustard 21 and executive director of SaskMustard.

Industry has been meeting with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture Canada and BASF, which announced last June it was going to introduce the crop in the United States in 2027 and in Canada a couple of years later.

WHY IT MATTERS: InVigor Gold is a genetically modified LibertyLink-resistant crop, which the European market won’t accept. Although BASF has called it a yellow canola, it is actually a brassica juncea, or from the mustard family, and not brassica napus, which is the canola grown in Western Canada.

Sask Mustard officially opposes the introduction of InVigorGold.

In December, it issued a news release and letter to producers to draw attention to what it called a critical threat from the crop. Saskatchewan supplies about 80 per cent of Canada’s mustard and 50 per cent of global supply.

Sask Mustard, Mustard 21 and the Canadian Mustard Association strongly disagree with BASF’s assertion the technology won’t negatively affect mustard producers, they said.

“The introduction of a GM B. juncea crop threatens to irreversibly contaminate Canada’s non-GM mustard supply through expected gene flow within a single species,” they said.

“This would destroy the trust we have built with international buyers, particularly in the European Union and Japan, who rely on the guaranteed non-GM status of Canadian mustard seed.”

French’s and France

In an interview, Mitzel said the next step is to consult with companies such as McCormick and others to gain their support.

In December he went to France to meet with four major processors that control about 80 per cent of the mustard in Europe. Some of them attended the recent mustard meetings online and are planning a trip to Saskatchewan this summer.

“They’re very concerned about it,” Mitzel said.

“They don’t want to lose the Canadian supply because it’s such high quality. They did tell me that 50 per cent of the mustard they buy comes from Canada. They’re not backing down on GMOs.”

The French would be faced with buying lower-quality crop from competitors such as Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan if Canada couldn’t guarantee GMO-free. That would cause milling issues, Mitzel said.

During the meeting, Kacy Gehring from Mountain States Oilseeds said U.S. farmers are also concerned. The first effects of possible contamination will be seen there and could limit their markets.

She asked if pressure from U.S. signatories would help the Canadian cause.

Others at the meeting likened their fight to a “David and Goliath” situation and wondered how they could possibly take on a huge company with far more money and people. They noted the similarity to when Triffid flax appeared years after the GM variety had been discontinued, resulting in expensive testing.

Howard Love, crop breeder for Mustard 21, said the crop is “absolutely not” canola. He discussed the science behind InVigor Gold’s development and how contamination could occur.

Contamination won’t be a problem in year one but will take a few years to develop, he said.

‘The right reasons’

In Canada, BASF would be targeting the brown soil zone where about 80 per cent of Saskatchewan mustard is grown, said Sask Mustard chair Norm Hall. Cross-pollination is a huge concern.

CMA chair Dave Macfarlane said his members see the threat based on Triffid and also from a 2009 finding of GM canola in European mustard. That incident led to testing as well.

He said the industry doesn’t know if the EU would allow similar testing protocols if InVigor Gold is approved.

Some growers asked what support they have from oilseed producers. Mitzel said the Canola Council of Canada appears “very much on side with what BASF is doing. They feel they need this product to continue to grow canola.”

During the SaskOilseeds meeting, chair Dean Roberts said his organization does not have an official position.

“Right now we’re gathering as much information as we can,” he said.

He said they have to be aware of what it means to come out against an innovation, particularly when a company is willing to invest in research and development.

“If we were to say no, we want to be sure we’re saying no for the right reasons, but we also want to be aware of the impacts those decisions could have on other markets,” he said.

“One hundred per cent, we’ve got our eye on it.”

The mustard industry is pinning its hopes on the CFIA and its regulatory process. Although often seen as burdensome, both Mitzel and Macfarlane said in this case that system is their best bet to save their sector.

The post Mustard industry works to stop InVigorGold appeared first on Grainews.

Beijing | Reuters—China has approved the safety of gene-edited wheat for the first time as Beijing cautiously moves forward with commercial growing of genetically modified food crops.

China has in the past year ramped up approvals of genetically modified (GM) corn and soybean seeds that are higher-yielding and resistant to insects and herbicide to secure its food security, but the uptake remains slow and cautious due to concerns about the impact to health and ecology.

Unlike genetic modification, which introduces foreign genes into a plant, gene editing alters existing genes to change or improve its performance and is viewed by some scientists as less risky than genetically modifying them.

China mostly imports GM crops such as corn and soybeans for animal feed and grows non-GM varieties for food consumption. Many Chinese consumers remain concerned about the safety of GM food crops.

The approval for the gene-edited disease-resistant wheat is seen as a milestone, as the ingredient – used to make pasta, noodles and bread – is predominantly grown in China for food consumption. China is the world’s largest wheat producer and consumer.

“It is a big step, we can see the light for China to open up approvals for other food crops,” said a seed industry executive.

Beijing is also expected to pass new rules this year for the labelling of genetically modified crops used in food products, state media reported in March.

The agriculture ministry on Wednesday also approved a new variety of genetically modified corn with herbicide and insect-resistant traits, as well as one gene-edited corn variety that is higher yielding.

The GM corn approval includes a variety by Origin Agritech 

The safety certificates have been approved for five years from May 5, according to a document published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

The world’s biggest buyer of soybeans and corn aims to raise domestic production through higher yielding seeds and cut its grains imports of more than 100 million metric tons a year.

The post China approves first gene-edited wheat in step to open up GM tech to food crops appeared first on Grainews.

The varieties approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in a notice on Tuesday include seed varieties owned by Dabeinong and China National Seed Group, a unit of Syngenta Group.

China has for years moved cautiously on the deployment of GM crops but in January said it will expand the planting of GM soybeans and corn after pilot projects showed good results in improving yields and lowering costs compared to conventional types of seeds.

The world’s biggest buyer of soybeans and corn aims to raise domestic production through higher yielding seeds and cut its grains imports of more than 100 million metric tons a year.

The list of approved varieties is open for public comment until April 17, according to the ministry notice.

“After the above varieties are approved according to the procedures, the actual planting area should also comply with the relevant arrangements for the national biological breeding industrialization,” said the notice.

–Reporting for Reuters by Dominique Patton.

The post China expands list of GM soybean, corn variety approvals appeared first on Grainews.

The decision follows Washington’s request for a dispute settlement panel through the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which escalated its objections to the restrictions imposed by Mexico on imports of GM corn.

Mexico in mid-February modified an end-2020 ban on GM corn, allowing its use in animal feed and industrial food, but maintained a ban on GM corn for human consumption, specifically in the use of making flour for tortillas, which is a staple of the Mexican diet.

Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng and Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay said in a statement that the country “shares the concerns” of the U.S. that Mexico is not compliant “with the science and risk analysis obligations” under CUSMA’s sanitary and phytosanitary measures chapter.

“Canada believes that these measures are not scientifically supported and have the potential to unnecessarily disrupt trade in the North American market,” the statement said.

Earlier this week, Mexican economy minister Raquel Buenrostro told Reuters her country would not modify the decree on GM corn ahead of the CUSMA panel as Mexico’s policy is based on science.

Tortillas in Mexico are made with non-GM white corn, in which it is self-sufficient, but the country imports corn worth around US$5 billion annually from the U.S., most of it yellow GM grain for livestock feed.

The CUSMA panel was announced after the failure of formal consultations to resolve deep differences between the two trading partners over GM corn.

— Reporting by Reuters newsroom, writing by Carolina Pulice.

The post Canada says will join as third party in U.S.-Mexico corn dispute appeared first on Grainews.

The request to send the dispute to arbitrators was announced after formal consultations failed to resolve deep divisions between the two close trading partners over use of genetically modified (GM) corn, widely produced by U.S. farmers.

Mexico’s economy ministry said it would defend its GM corn policies before the dispute panel, saying on the social media platform X that they “are consistent with trade obligations.”

Washington alleges that Mexico’s decree banning imports of GM corn used in dough and tortillas for human consumption is not based on science and violates its commitments under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on trade launched in 2020.

If the panel rules in favour of the U.S. and Mexico fails to comply with its directives, USTR could ultimately win the right to impose punitive tariffs on Mexican goods, which could spark a rare North American trade war.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a statement that the move was aimed at enforcing Mexico’s CUSMA obligations to maintain science-based regulations on agricultural biotechnology.

“It is critical that Mexico eliminate its (CUSMA)-inconsistent biotechnology measures so that American farmers can continue to access the Mexican market and use innovative tools to respond to climate and food security challenges,” Tai said.

Mexico now buys about US$5 billion worth of U.S. GM corn annually, mostly for livestock feed. It says biotech corn harms native varieties and may have adverse health effects, an assertion that the U.S. side disputes.

Mexico also plans to ban the herbicide glyphosate, which it considers dangerous amid lawsuit settlements with cancer patients despite regulators worldwide determining its safety. Many GM corn varieties are modified to tolerate the herbicide.

Canada’s trade ministry, which has sided with U.S. concerns about Mexico’s corn policies, “is considering its next steps,” a spokesperson said, adding Trade Minister Mary Ng “has consistently been clear about the importance of maintaining science-based approaches to biotechnology approvals.”

Corn futures temporarily pared gains at the Chicago Board of Trade after USTR’s announcement as traders worried the spat could threaten U.S. exports to Mexico.

Fruitless consultations

The panel request follows 75 days of formal consultations requested by U.S. officials in June. Mexico has sought U.S. co-operation to jointly conduct scientific research on the health impacts of genetically modified corn, but Mexican officials told Reuters on Aug. 3 that their U.S. counterparts denied the request.

“Mexico’s approach to biotechnology is not based on science and runs counter to decades’ worth of evidence demonstrating its safety and the rigorous, science-based regulatory review system that ensures it poses no harm to human health and the environment,” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in the statement.

He added that innovations in agricultural biotechnology to enhance yields also help ease challenges on global food and nutrition security, climate change and food price inflation.

USTR’s decision drew cheers from U.S. corn trade groups and U.S. lawmakers from both parties, who say Mexico’s policies were hurting U.S. farmers.

“U.S. officials have exhausted every avenue trying to resolve this conflict and are left with no other choice but to turn to a third-party panel in hopes of quickly rectifying this issue,” National Corn Growers Association president Tom Haag said in a statement. “We are deeply appreciative of USTR for standing up for America’s corn growers.”

Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska said the move would “hold Mexico accountable and prevent its blatant trade violation under (CUSMA).”

Under CUSMA’s dispute settlement rules, a five-person panel, chosen from a roster of pre-approved experts, must be convened within 30 days, with a chair jointly chosen and the U.S. side choosing two Mexican panelists and Mexico choosing two U.S. panelists. The panel will review testimony and written submissions and its initial report is due 150 days after the panel is convened.

Previous CUSMA dispute panels last year ruled in the U.S.’s favour in a dispute over Canadian dairy quotas, and against the U.S. on automotive rules of origin, siding with Mexico and Canada.

There have been other disagreements between the U.S. and Mexico, most notably over energy in which the U.S. has argued that Mexico’s nationalist policy prejudices foreign companies.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Lawder; additional reporting by Steve Scherer in Ottawa, Adriana Barrera and Valentine Hillaire in Mexico City and Caroline Stauffer in Chicago.

The post U.S. escalates Mexico corn trade spat with dispute panel request appeared first on Grainews.

The annual meeting of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) Free Trade Commission will take place on Thursday and Friday in the Mexican resort city of Cancun, with participation from Tai, Mexican Economy Secretary Raquel Buenrostro and Canada’s Minister of International Trade Mary Ng.

The meeting is required under the rules of CUSMA, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, for the trading partners to discuss issues related to the trade pact.

A senior USTR official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said the three ministers will discuss the ongoing implementation of CUSMA, which is scheduled for a major review and potential updates in 2026. A new subcommittee created last year on competitiveness and supply chains also will meet to update officials on work to facilitate trade flows during crisis situations and prevent disruptions, the official added.

The official said North American trade irritants that are in dispute consultations or arbitration — and which could ultimately lead to punitive U.S. import duties — are being handled through separate channels. The “primary place” to discuss these issues are in issue-specific consultations started under CUSMA dispute settlement rules, the official added.

These issues include U.S. complaints over Mexican policies to limit use of genetically modified corn imported from the United States, and over Canada’s allocation of dairy import quotas that U.S. officials have said hurts U.S. producers.

These disputes also include the USTR’s long-running consultations with Mexico over its energy policies that fail to meet commitments to open its energy market to outside competitors.

“Those are obviously very important issues that remain important on all levels, so they’re on the top list of priorities,” the official said. “I wouldn’t say that they’re walled off, but certainly the primary space for discussing them is in the actual consultations.”

After a CUSMA dispute settlement panel ruled in January against the stricter U.S. interpretation of the trade pact’s automotive rules of origin, siding with Mexico and Canada, the U.S. was working separately with its two partners to find a solution for “enhancing North American motor vehicle production and jobs,” the official said.

The Cancun meeting also will include discussions on CUSMA’s “rapid response mechanism” for labor rights violations at specific factories. The U.S. has invoked 11 cases under the mechanism since CUSMA was launched, including an investigation at a Goodyear plant in Mexico that is the sixth this year.

The official said the USTR has brought good co-operation from Mexico on the mechanism, which is aimed at improving labour rights at Mexican factories. A senior U.S. labour official separately told Reuters that Mexico needs stronger institutions to protect workers as companies shift supply chains to the southern U.S. neighbour.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Lawder in Washington; additional reporting by Daina Beth Solomon in Mexico City.

The post NAFTA meeting to skirt major disputes, U.S. trade rep says appeared first on Grainews.

Germany had announced in September 2015 that it will ban cultivation of crops with GMOs under new European Union rules allowing member states to opt out of their cultivation.

An EU law approved in 2015 cleared the way for new GM crops to be approved after years of deadlock. But the law also gave individual countries the right to ban GM crops even after they have been approved as safe by the European Commission.

Under the draft German law, applicants seeking EU approval to cultivate GM crops will be asked by the German government to remove Germany from the area in the EU where the crops are approved for growing.

If this is refused, a ban on growing the GM crop in Germany can be imposed even if the EU approves the plant strain as safe to cultivate.

Widely grown in the Americas and Asia, GMO crops in Europe face divided opinion. Britain is partly in favour of them, while France and Germany are among countries that oppose them.

There is general agreement in Germany that the country should ban GMOs, but disagreement whether the bans should be imposed by federal or state authorities caused a long delay in agreeing the draft law on the ban.

— Reporting for Reuters by Hans-Edzard Busemann, writing by Michael Hogan.

The post German cabinet approves draft law banning GM crops appeared first on Grainews.

The buffer zones to protect vulnerable species, such as butterflies, have been part of heated debate in Europe about the safety of GM crops, which the producers say are entirely safe and environmentalists say are a serious threat to biodiversity.

Research has found caterpillars of some butterfly species can be harmed by GM pollen.

The opinion dated July 1, seen by Reuters, from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which guides EU policymakers, said its previous assessment had been far too conservative.

But it said its recommendation — a 20-metre buffer zone surrounding a Monsanto maize variety to protect butterflies, and a 30-metre buffer zone for a DuPont Pioneer maize product — “remains valid.”

The new risk assessment from EFSA was triggered by German research published in Environmental Sciences Europe last year that showed pollen from GM maize could travel up to three km, 100 times further than the 30 metres established by the EFSA in 2011.

“Once the study was published, it was clear that our previous assessment was overly conservative,” EFSA spokesman James Ramsay said.

EFSA “has confirmed the appropriateness of the existing 20-metre buffer zones for Monsanto maize,” a spokesperson from Monsanto said.

DuPont Pioneer said the report was further confirmation of the safety of GM products, adding it was the eighth “positive safety opinion” in 14 years.

Environmental campaigners said EFSA’s finding that butterflies were more likely to be harmed by pollen that had travelled a greater distance reinforced their arguments that buffer zones around GM crops need to be extended.

“The results of the biggest research into growing maize should have raised bigger alarm bells and more precaution,” Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said.

“Relying on the hope that rain or wind might weaken the impact of toxic GM pollen simply isn’t credible.”

The EFSA’s recommendation has been sent to the European Commission and to member states for implementation. No one from the Commission had immediate comment.

— Alexander Saeedy reports for Reuters from Brussels.

The post No need seen for new EU rules to protect butterflies from GM crops appeared first on Grainews.

The order, announced in a statement by President Barack Obama’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, followed demands by consumers, food-related organizations and businesses for tighter U.S. regulation of genetically modified (GMO) crops, amid a nationwide debate over whether they should be labeled.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposed a rule in 2008 after being cited in a government audit for oversight lapses, and after high-profile GMO contaminations that led to food recalls and disrupted trade.

But USDA never finalized that proposal and withdrew it earlier this year. In recent months, it has been seeking public input on a new rule.

Biotech crops are regulated through the government’s “co-ordinated framework” that involves APHIS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

On Thursday the White House said “the complexity of the array of regulations and guidance documents developed by the three federal agencies… can make it difficult for the public to understand how the safety of biotechnology products is evaluated, and navigating the regulatory process for these products can be unduly challenging, especially for small companies.”

The administration said it will clarify the roles and responsibilities of the EPA, USDA and FDA, and try to develop a long-term strategy to ensure regulators are well equipped to assess risks with future biotech products.

The administration also said it was commissioning an independent analysis of the future for biotech products.

“Reform of the badly outdated system for reviewing GMO crops and other products is long overdue,” Scott Faber, senior vice-president of the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), whose members include GMO crop developers, said it welcomed a path toward more efficient and transparent approvals of new products.

“We look forward to reviewing the proposal in more detail and working with the administration on this moving forward,” Matt O’Mara, BIO vice-president, said in a statement.

— Carey Gillam is a Reuters correspondent covering agriculture and agribusiness from Kansas City.

The post White House directs U.S. GMO regulators to update oversight appeared first on Grainews.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said it was considering changes to the way it regulates biotech crops and set a public comment period that expired Monday.

The agency had proposed a regulatory rule in 2008 after being cited in a government audit for holes in its oversight, criticized in court rulings, and after high-profile GMO contamination events that led to food recalls and trade disruption.

USDA never finalized that proposal and withdrew it earlier this year.

Before Monday, USDA had received comments from more than 74,000 “signatories,” said spokesman Richard Bell. He said “comments received are thoroughly analyzed and used to assist with the decision-making process.”

In the recommendations filed on Monday, the groups said the government needs to do more to adequately protect the “environment, economy, farmers, consumers and public health.”

The groups signing onto the recommendations include the National Family Farm Coalition, the Organic Consumers Association, Clif Bar + Co., Nature’s Path and 34 other organizations.

Currently, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) can grant new genetically altered crops “nonregulated” status if developers demonstrate that tests show the new crops do not pose a risk to plant health.

But the groups called on the agency to expand its work to assess the safety of GMO crops for human and animal consumption, and closely monitor genetically engineered crop production systems for weed resistance problems or harm to ecosystems. They also said the agency needs to work harder to prevent contamination of non-GMO crops by GMO crops.

APHIS said it places a “high priority” on the feedback it is receiving.

Biotech crop supporters say there is a wealth of evidence that the GMO crops on the market are safe and already well regulated. Critics argue that the U.S. government conducts no independent testing of these biotech crops before they are approved and does little to track them after.

“Our public agencies cannot rely on the corporations that profit from sale of GE crops to decide how many and what kinds of tests to conduct, or what information is shared with regulators and the public,” Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America, said in a statement

— Carey Gillam is a Reuters correspondent covering agriculture and agribusiness from Kansas City.

The post Groups urge tighter controls as U.S. considers GM crop regulation appeared first on Grainews.