Vol. 148, No. 12 — June 4, 2014
SOR/2014-114 May 16, 2014
Regulations Amending the Seeds Regulations
P.C. 2014-569 May 15, 2014
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, pursuant to subsection 4(1) (see footnote a) of the Seeds Act (see footnote b), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Seeds Regulations.
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE SEEDS REGULATIONS
1. Subparagraph 67(1)(a)(v) of the Seeds Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:
- (v) a recommendation that is not more than two years old from a recommending committee stating whether the variety should be registered,
2. Section 71 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
71. (1) The Registrar must annually establish a list of experts consisting of not less than six and not more than twenty persons whose professional qualifications, experience or achievements in the field of seed or variety development and evaluation render them experts for the purposes of advising the Registrar on matters involving the refusal or cancellation of any registration under this Part.
(2) The Registrar shall not enter the name of any person on the list of experts unless that person consents to advise the Registrar, on request, on matters involving the refusal or cancellation of any registration under this Part without charging any fees or claiming any disbursements.
3. Section 74 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:
CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION
74. The Registrar must cancel the registration of a variety if
- (a) the variety has demonstrated susceptibility to disease or such inferior quality as to have an adverse effect on Canadian agriculture and the food system;
- (b) the variety has demonstrated significant levels of contamination such that the genetic purity of the variety has been jeopardized;
- (c) the variety has been altered in such a manner that it differs from the representative reference sample;
- (d) the variety or its progeny may be detrimental to human or animal health and safety or the environment;
- (e) false or misleading information was submitted in support of the application for registration;
- (f) the variety name became a registered trademark in respect of that variety after registration;
- (g) the variety has been altered in such a manner as to convert it to a variety that is registered under a different name;
- (h) the variety has been found to be indistinguishable from another variety that was or currently is registered in Canada;
- (i) the variety is no longer subject to the variety registration requirements; or
- (j) the registrant has requested the cancellation of the registration of the variety.
4. (1) Subsection 75(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
75. (1) The Registrar must not cancel the registration of a variety unless the Registrar sends a notice, by registered mail, to the registrant giving the reasons for the cancellation and advising that the registrant may make representations concerning the cancellation to the Registrar in accordance with this section.
(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply if the registrant has requested the cancellation of the variety.
(2) Subsection 75(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(3) A registrant who receives a notice referred to in subsection (1) may, within 30 days after the day on which the notice is received, make written representations to the Registrar concerning the cancellation.
(3) Subsection 75(5) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(5) If, on conclusion of the review of the representations made under subsection (3), the Registrar determines that the registration must be cancelled, the cancellation is effective on the seventh day after the day on which the notice of that determination is mailed to the registrant.
5. Section 76 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
76. (1) The Registrar must reinstate the registration of a variety if the former registrant makes a written request to reinstate the registration and the Registrar determines that the reasons for cancelling the registration are no longer valid.
(2) A former registrant who makes a request to reinstate a registration is not required to submit the information referred to in section 67.
6. Schedule III to the Regulations is replaced by the Schedule III set out in the schedule to these Regulations.
COMING INTO FORCE
7. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
(Section 65, subsections 65.1(1), (2) and (4) and 67(1.1), section 67.1 and paragraph 68(2)(a))
SPECIES, KINDS OR TYPES OF CROPS SUBJECT TO VARIETY REGISTRATION
|Species, Kind or Type
|Barley, six-row, two-row
|Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. vulgare
|Bean, faba (small-seeded)
|Vicia faba L.
|Phaseolus vulgaris L.
|Fagopyrum esculentum Moench
|Canola, oilseed rape, rapeseed
|Brassica rapa L. subsp. campestris (L.) A.R. Clapham or B. napus L. var. napus (= B. napus L. var. oleifera Delile) or B. juncea (L.) Czern.
|Linum usitatissimum L.
|Lentil (grain type)
|Lens culinaris Medik.
|Mustard, brown, oriental, Indian
|Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.
|Mustard, white (= yellow)
|Sinapis alba L.
|Oat (grain type)
|Avena sativa L., A. nuda L.
|Pea, field (commodity type)
|Pisum sativum L.
|Rye (grain type)
|Secale cereale L.
|Nicotiana tabacum L.
|Triticale (grain type)
|× Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus
|Triticum aestivum L.
|Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum (Desf.) Husn. (= T. durum Desf.)
|Triticum aestivum L. subsp. spelta (L.) Thell. (= T. spelta L.)
|Carthamus tinctorius L.
|Alfalfa (forage type)
|Medicago sativa L.
|Bird’s foot trefoil
|Lotus corniculatus L.
|Bromus riparius Rehmann
|Bromus inermis Leyss.
|Phalaris canariensis L.
|Canary grass, reed
|Phalaris arundinacea L.
|Trifolium hybridum L.
|Trifolium pratense L.
|Clover, sweet (white blossom)
|Melilotus albus Medik.
|Clover, sweet (yellow blossom)
|Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam.
|Trifolium repens L.
|Fescue, meadow (forage type)
|Festuca pratensis Huds.
|Fescue, red (forage type)
|Festuca rubra L. subsp. rubra
|Fescue, tall (forage type)
|Festuca arundinacea Schreb.
|Lupin, lupine (grain and forage types)
|Dactylis glomerata L.
|Potato (commercial production)
|Solanum tuberosum L.
|Ryegrass, annual (forage type)
|Lolium multiflorum Lam.
|Ryegrass, perennial (forage type)
|Lolium perenne L.
|Glycine max (L.) Merr.
|Helianthus annuus L.
|Timothy, common (forage type)
|Phleum pratense L.
|Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) Á. Löve (= Agropyron spicatum (Pursh) Scribn. & J. G. Smith f. inerme (Scribn. & J.G. Smith) Beetle)
|Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. or A. desertorum (Fisch. ex Link) Schult.
|Elytrigia intermedia (Host) Nevski subsp. intermedia (= Agropyron intermedium (Host) Beauv.)
|Elymus lanceolatus (Scribn. & J.G. Sm.) Gould subsp. lanceolatus (= Agropyron dasystachyum (Hook.) Scribn.)
|Elytrigia intermedia (Host) Nevski subsp. intermedia (= Agropyron trichophorum (Link) Richter)
|Agropyron fragile (Roth) P. Candargy subsp. sibiricum (Willd.) Melderis (= Agropyron sibiricum (Willd.) Beauv.)
|Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners (= Agropyron trachycaulum (Link) Malte ex H.F. Lewis)
|Elymus lanceolatus (Scribn. & J.G. Sm.) Gould subsp. lanceolatus (= Agropyron riparium Scribn. & Smith)
|Elytrigia elongata (Host) Nevski (= Agropyron elongatum (Host) P. Beauv.)
|Pascopyrum smithii (Rydb.) Á. Löve (= Agropyron smithii Rydb.)
|Leymus angustus (Trin.) Pilg. (= Elymus angustus Trin.)
|Elymus dahuricus Turcz ex Griseb.
|Psathyrostachys juncea (Fisch.) Nevski (= Elymus junceus Fisch.)
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Pursuant to the Seeds Act, the Seeds Regulations (the Regulations) prescribe requirements to safeguard that seeds sold in, and imported into Canada meet established standards for quality, and are labelled in order to be properly represented in the marketplace. Seeds of varieties of most agricultural crop kinds are subject to mandatory variety registration which serves several purposes: (i) confirms that health and safety requirements are met, (ii) provides identification and traceability of plants with novel traits, (iii) assures that varieties meet the internationally recognized definition of a variety, (iv) acts as the repository for official variety descriptions, and the official reference seed sample, which are used to verify varieties throughout their commercial lifespan, and (v) plays a role in maintaining and improving quality standards, disease tolerance, and agronomic performance.
In July 2009, the Regulations were amended to create a flexible variety registration system to address the diverse needs of the various crop sectors in Canada. The goal was to create a framework to reduce the regulatory burden of variety registration. This was accomplished by dividing the list of all crop kinds that require variety registration, found in Schedule III of the Regulations, into three parts representing three levels of variety registration requirements. For all parts, a completed basic variety registration package is required, including information demonstrating conformity with minimum health and safety standards, information confirming the identity of new varieties, information supporting the verification of claims (e.g. disease resistance), and information required for seed certification purposes. However, the three parts each have different pre-registration testing (field trials and laboratory testing) and merit assessment requirements. In all three parts, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) maintained the authority to decline registration of varieties that may be detrimental to animal or human health as well as the safety of the environment. One crop kind was included in the new Part II (safflower) and two crops in the new Part III (potato and sunflower), while the majority of crop kinds remained in Part I (status quo). It was intended that future placement of crop kinds within the three parts would take place through regulatory amendments.
In addition to the completed application package, the parts in the current Regulations require the following:
- Crop kinds in Part I require pre-registration testing (field trials and sometimes laboratory testing) and merit assessment by a recommending committee to assess that the candidate seed varieties meet minimum standards. A recommending committee, which is approved by the Minister under the Regulations, is comprised of public and private sector crop experts. Its role is to establish protocols for pre-registration testing (subject to review by the CFIA) and to assess the merit of the seed variety. A seed variety is determined to have merit if it performs as well as or better than appropriate commercial reference varieties for one or more criteria as established for that crop kind. If the recommending committee determines that the variety has merit, it will recommend that the CFIA register that seed variety.
- Crop kinds in Part II require pre-registration testing with oversight by a recommending committee but do not require merit assessment. This part is intended to address crop kinds where oversight to confirm the validity of pre-registration testing data is useful, but where merit assessment does not effectively predict the utility and value of varieties in the marketplace. In this case, the recommending committee will review the results of the pre-registration tests to verify compliance with the test protocols but will not assess a variety’s merit. If the recommending committee finds that the variety has complied with the pre-registration test requirement(s), it will recommend that the CFIA register that variety.
- Crop kinds in Part III do not require pre-registration testing or merit assessment. Crop kinds are included in this part where pre-registration testing and merit assessment are deemed to be excessively burdensome or ineffective. There is no recommending committee involved for Part III crops, and application for registration is made directly to the CFIA.
When the tiered registration system was put in place, the CFIA committed to considering proposals to decrease regulatory burden through moving crop kinds from Part I to Parts II or III on a priority basis, based on the strength of the rationale and degree of consensus within each crop value chain. A crop value chain comprises every value-adding stakeholder and activity along each step of a crop variety’s development, distribution, production and end use. The CFIA created a guidance document for crop-specific stakeholders to help facilitate the process.
Seed is either sold as pedigreed or common; common seed must meet basic purity standards which limit the presence of weed seeds or seeds of other crop types (e.g. corn seed in a lot of soybean seed). Whereas common seed of most crop kinds subject to variety registration is not allowed to be sold with a variety name, pedigreed seed is sold as specific varieties, which are the result of breeding lines developed at public and private institutions. As a result, pedigreed seed, in addition to being inspected for weed seeds and seeds of other crops, is inspected during field production for the presence of other varieties of seed of the same crop type (e.g. seed of the pea variety Venture in a lot of seed of the pea variety Vortex). Buying pedigreed seed allows the farmer to be sure that the crop will meet certain performance standards. Today, there are 53 crop types subject to variety registration and a total of 3 329 varieties currently registered. More than 1 100 varieties have been registered in the past six years.
The seed industry contributes $3.95 billion dollars per year to the Canadian economy and employs 14 200 Canadians. Of that $3.95 billion, $361 million is contributed by plant breeding and research programs, and $1.1 billion from seed production. The remainder is contributed by seed processing and marketing. In 2010, there were 3 735 pedigreed seed producers and over 500 000 hectares of pedigreed seed production.
There is a wide variety of public and private breeding programs in Canada. In 2012, the private sector invested over $99 million in plant breeding and research programs in Canada; by 2013, it planned to invest $106 million.
Although this amendment will benefit both large multinational and small local breeding companies, the smaller companies will see a greater benefit, as the reduced costs for variety registration will represent greater relative savings. They will also be able to recoup the costs of their breeding programs faster as pedigreed seed will be available earlier, allowing them to stay competitive within the market. This amendment will also increase the number of varieties being registered by smaller companies as they will not have to decide which varieties they can afford to send for pre- registration testing. In general, this regulatory change will allow farmers faster access to a wider selection of new varieties of seed produced by both large and small breeding programs.
This amendment addresses two issues in the current Regulations: compliance burden within the seed variety registration process and the distinction between suspension and cancellation of a seed registration.
In response to industry needs and to reduce regulatory burden on small business, the CFIA is reducing the variety registration requirements for oilseed soybeans and forages by moving these crop kinds from Part I to Part III of Schedule III to the Regulations. Part III of Schedule III provides a sufficient level of regulatory oversight as new oilseed soybean and forage varieties still require a standard application package. A completed standard application package provides adequate information to enable the CFIA to continue to protect health and safety, prevent deception, and facilitate seed certification. The necessity for pre-registration testing and merit assessment, as well as their associated monetary and temporal costs and any uncertainty in the outcome of the process is removed.
This amendment further addresses comments made by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR) concerning the practical difference between the suspension and cancellation of variety registration, and whether it is practical to distinguish between the two, given that either may be reinstated without requiring a new application. As the effect appears to be the same in either case, the Regulations are amended to simply provide for cancellation.
The fundamental objective of this amendment is to reduce regulatory burden on developers of new oilseed soybean and forage crop varieties and facilitate market entry. The amendments will allow quicker access to new varieties for both producers and end users versus the status quo, increase innovation within the seed and crop sectors, and generate cost savings for industry. This amendment will not make any changes to the existing minimum variety registration requirements.
The Red Tape Reduction Commission (RTRC) advised the Government of Canada on ways to reduce the regulatory compliance burden on businesses in cases where that compliance burden is inhibiting growth, productivity, competitiveness and innovation, while maintaining the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. A red tape irritant recognized by the RTRC was that delayed approvals for new products puts Canadian industry at a competitive disadvantage in both domestic and international markets. These regulatory amendments reduce the compliance burden of variety registration and were specifically included in the commitments made by the CFIA in their response plan to recommendations made by the RTRC. The more flexible variety registration framework was developed in 2009 to respond to the specific needs of different crop sectors in Canada, and to reduce regulatory burden while maintaining an appropriate level of government oversight. These amendments to further reduce the registration requirements for oilseed soybean and forages will significantly reduce the regulatory compliance burden and improve the timeliness of variety registration.
An additional objective of this amendment is to implement the suggested recommendations of the SJCSR, which will simplify and eliminate the confusion between suspension and cancellation of variety registration. As recommended, the Regulations will simply provide for cancellation.
The amendment will move oilseed soybean and forage species (alfalfa, bird’s foot trefoil, bromegrasses, canarygrass, alsike clover, red clover, sweet clover, white clover, fescues [forage type], lupin, orchardgrass, ryegrasses, timothy, wheat grasses, and wild ryes) from Part I to Part III of Schedule III to the Regulations.
Within the current tiered registration system, oilseed soybeans and forage crop varieties are registered under Part I. In addition to a completed application for variety registration, new varieties of oilseed soybeans and forage crops require pre-registration testing and merit assessment before being registered by the CFIA. For new oilseed soybean varieties, these requirements add one to two years to the registration process and cost approximately $750 in pre-registration testing fees per variety; as most forage species are perennials, new varieties require three to five years of testing at a cost of approximately $1,500 in pre-registration testing fees per forage variety.
Due to the compounded risk of failure associated with multi-year trials (e.g. flooding or drought), the upfront investment incurred for forages is higher and the risk of a negative merit assessment outcome is higher as opposed to annual crops. Although forage crop testing is well established in some regions, the overall number of test sites has decreased as a result of reduced public funding and other resource limitations. In addition, forage varieties are registered nationally although their fitness might vary significantly between the region where they are grown and the region where the pre-registration testing was conducted. Finally, as the release of data from pre-registration trials is at the discretion of the variety developer and outside of the CFIA’s mandate, producers must rely on other available sources of performance data, such as post-registration trials, to make appropriate variety selections for their area.
Movement of oilseed soybeans and forages to Part III will not result in any significant cost savings for government. While the removal of merit assessment under Part III will marginally reduce the length of time to review individual soybean and forage applications by the CFIA staff, there will be a corresponding and offsetting increase in the number of applications for registration.
Placement of oilseed soybeans and forages in Part III will provide more timely access to new soybean and forage varieties for both producers and end users, increase innovation and competition within the seed and crop sectors, and result in cost savings for industry due to the reduced regulatory burden. These benefits will accrue as a result of the removal of the financial, time, and resource investments currently required to meet existing standardized pre-registration test requirements (field trials and laboratory testing). It will also reduce the degree of risk associated with the merit assessment outcome.
This amendment will also remove the suspension and reinstatement of variety registration, with the result that the Regulations would only provide for the cancellation of variety registration. This will address comments made by the SJCSR about the practical difference between the suspension and the cancellation of variety registration, as the effect is the same in either case.
Prior to prepublication of proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on March 9, 2013, specific consultations on changing the requirements for oilseed soybeans and forages were held during national stakeholder meetings, crop recommending committee meetings and industry-led conference calls, and through discussion documents and direct correspondence. Soybean value chain participants throughout the consultation included commercial plant breeders, university research programs, seed companies, public and private plant breeders, major industry associations and interested individuals. Forage value chain participants at various stages of the consultation included the Canadian Forage and Grasslands Association, the Canadian Seed Trade Association, the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association, primary producers, seed companies, plant breeders, forage recommending committee and interested individuals.
At a national stakeholder workshop in October 2009, discussions were held on the potential impacts of movement of oilseed soybeans and forages to Part II or III of the tiered registration system. Participating stakeholders indicated support for movement to Part III, citing faster producer access to new varieties and reduced regulatory burden for variety developers. Discussions also indicated that impacts on seed growers would be neutral because decisions about which varieties to increase are primarily made by private variety developers and seed companies, not individual seed growers.
A discussion document seeking feedback on the impacts of movement of forages to Parts II and III was distributed to approximately 1 500 seed stakeholders in March 2010. A similar discussion document on oilseed soybean variety registration was distributed in October 2010. In March 2010, the forages consultations were followed up with a targeted face-to-face meeting. A teleconference call on oilseed soybean variety registration requirements was also held in November 2010. Support for the amendments was established through these channels, as well as through direct correspondence from interested and affected stakeholders.
The movement of oilseed soybeans to Part III of the registration system is well supported by all key stakeholders and is expected to cause little to no controversy. While there is a clear consensus among key stakeholders to place minor forage species in Part III, some stakeholders indicated that Part II might be more appropriate for major forage species in order to provide performance information to growers. However, this rationale is not entirely valid. During consultations with forage stakeholders, the CFIA clarified that Part II registration requires pre-registration field testing, but the resulting data can only be used to evaluate whether the test was conducted according to the protocols established by that committee. Data from pre-registration trials cannot be evaluated by the recommending committee for agronomic performance (merit assessment), and therefore, cannot influence the committee’s recommendation for registration for that variety. Data from pre-registration trials also cannot be released by the CFIA as it is not public domain information. The applicants and the committee may choose to share pre-registration data but this cannot be mandatory. In addition, some forage recommending committees currently accept foreign data in lieu of Canadian data (although the data must be collected from similar agro-climatic zones) with the result that pre-registration test results, if disseminated by the variety’s developers or representatives, may not be representative of a variety’s performance in Canada and would be of limited use to Canadian growers. For these reasons, the stakeholder rationale for moving major forage crops to Part II is not entirely valid.
Placing oilseed soybeans and forages in Part III of the variety registration framework will remove the existing requirement for standardized pre-registration testing and merit assessment. Merit assessment determines whether a candidate variety performs as well as or better than appropriate reference commercial varieties with respect to characteristics that render the variety beneficial for a particular use in a region of Canada. As a result, absence of the requirement for merit assessment in Part III may result in registration, and subsequent cultivation, of varieties that are less agronomically adapted to their area. However, this is expected to have minimal impact on consumer protection given that in the existing system, varieties are granted national registration based on performance data from regional trials so producers must already conduct their own research to satisfy themselves they are selecting the best varieties for their farm. This is also unlikely given that variety developers are driven by the needs of producers and end users. In addition, since unregistered varieties may currently be imported into Canada for the purposes of seed multiplication and re-export, research or seeding by the importer, the potential for cultivation of less agronomically adapted varieties already exists. Part III registration requirements for forages and oilseed soybeans will provide a more streamlined option for registering varieties in these cases and will provide the CFIA with the basic information about the identity and health and safety of the variety.
Prepublication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on March 9, 2013, was followed by a 75-day comment period which ended on May 23, 2013. In total, the CFIA received 3 077 written comments. Of these responses, 2 925 (95%) were form letters submitted as part of a letter-writing campaign. Apart from this campaign, a total of 153 unique responses were received — 136 from individuals (134 were related to the campaign, but the content of the letter varied enough to warrant being considered as a unique response), 11 from stakeholder organizations, and 6 from private seed companies.
There were three main arguments contained in the form letter, which were:
(1) Oilseed soybeans and forages should remain in Part I to maintain government oversight and regulation. However, the movement of oilseed soybeans and forages to Part III will not affect the CFIA’s ability to monitor, trace and regulate the sale of seed of varieties in the marketplace and related compliance and enforcement actions. Keeping these crop types in Part I will continue to delay the availability to new varieties to producers and retain the associated regulatory burden. It should be noted that without exception, all key value chain stakeholder organizations and private seed companies who responded to this consultation, outside of the letter-writing campaign, favoured the movement of oilseed soybean and forage species out of Part I.
(2) This amendment would make it easier to register genetically modified (GM) alfalfa varieties. However, the safety evaluation of plants with genetic modifications is outside the scope of these variety registration and these amendments. GM traits must pass safety assessments for food, feed, and environmental release, which are conducted by Health Canada and two separate directorates within the CFIA, and not by the Variety Registration Office. No variety with a genetic modification can be registered until it has passed each of the three safety assessments. Therefore, concerns regarding the safety of GM varieties are not relevant to these amendments.
(3) The amendment would allow variety registrants to deregister their varieties on request. The letter argued that variety developers should not be allowed to cancel their varieties on request, thereby making seed of those varieties illegal to grow and sell in Canada. As there is no procedural difference between suspension and cancellation of variety registrations, the SJCSR requested that suspension be removed from the Regulations. As a result of this request, sections that concern suspension of variety registration were amended. The ability of registrants to request the cancellation of the registration of their own varieties has existed in the Regulations since 1996 and, therefore, is not new.
Outside of responses received from the letter-writing campaign, respondents presented two main arguments, both of which support the movement of oilseed soybean and forage species out of Part I:
(1) Place major forages in Part II
Three key respondents representing over 200 000 Canadian farms and associations indicated a preference to place the major forage crop types (alfalfa, bromegrass, red clover, timothy, and orchardgrass) in Part II rather than Part III, with the remaining minor forages being placed in Part III. These respondents stated that producers should have access to performance data, which is currently available through pre-registration testing, to reduce the risk of planting a variety which may underperform in their region.
This rationale is not valid as national registration is supported by regional pre-registration trials, which may not accurately capture the performance of the variety across Canada. Furthermore, pre-registration trials are not robust performance trials, and there is no mandate in the Regulations to ensure the provision of performance data to growers. If placed in Part II, new varieties of major forages would continue to be subject to a three- to five-year registration delay, thereby maintaining economic and temporal barriers against the introduction of new forage varieties to Canadian producers and markets. As it has never been the intention of the variety registration system to ensure the provision of the regional performance testing results, the rationale for placement of major forages in Part II is not considered valid. As most recently registered forage varieties result from foreign breeding programs, eliminating pre-registration testing will increase foreign interest and result in a larger number of varieties available to Canadian producers in a timely manner.
(2) Place oilseed soybeans and/or all forages in Part III
Eleven respondents supported the movement of oilseed soybeans and/or all forages to Part III of the Regulations. These respondents represent over 67 000 farms, associations, seed companies and individuals. Respondents indicated this change would reduce the uncertainty of variety registration and increase Canadian access to innovative or niche varieties in a timely manner, enabling Canadian producers to remain competitive in domestic and international markets.
Without exception, all key value chain stakeholder organizations and private seed companies who responded to this consultation favoured the movement of oilseed soybean and forage species out of Part I.
Based on the responses that were received during the consultation period following the prepublication of these amendments in Part I of the Canada Gazette, the stakeholder consensus resulting from consultations conducted between 2007 to 2012, and the rationales provided for change, oilseed soybean and forage crop types are moved to Part III of Schedule III to the Seeds Regulations. This change will allow producers to have more choice and freedom through timely access to innovative varieties by reducing the regulatory burden and requirements of variety registration.
6. “One-for-One” Rule
This regulatory amendment to remove pre-registration testing and merit assessment from oilseed soybean and forage variety applications will impact variety developers and the oilseed soybean and forage crop recommending committees.
The CFIA estimates that the total administrative savings to all stakeholders resulting from this amendment will be $109,515 annually or a present value of $2.4 million over a 10-year period. There are 56 stakeholders impacted, and each stakeholder will save $1,956 per year.
The amendment to remove the pre-registration testing will reduce record keeping and reporting time by 16 hours for every oilseed soybean and forage variety developed by a stakeholder. This will generate an administrative savings of approximately $73,636 annually for all impacted businesses.
In addition, the removal of merit assessment will reduce the administrative costs to stakeholders by $45,804 annually. The amendment will eliminate the need for the recommending committee members to fund their attendance at meetings during which data packages are reviewed and merit is assessed.
Calculations of administrative costs were done using information provided by industry, based on consultations conducted in March 2012. At the end of September 2012, industry was contacted again to validate and confirm the relevant numbers used in determining administrative and compliance costs that they provided through previous consultations. Every Canadian representative who registered an oilseed soybean or forage variety in the past five years was contacted to verify the accuracy of the following average numbers: hours spent on compliance activities, hours spent on administrative activities, and the hourly wage of the person responsible for carrying out compliance and administrative activities. In total, 32 companies were contacted. Six responses were received. The numbers contributed in the responses were averaged and used to estimate cost savings.
7. Small business lens
Twenty-nine small businesses will be affected by the regulatory amendment. The removal of the pre-registration testing and merit assessment will reduce the administrative burden (record keeping, reporting, and reviewing of data packages) and the compliance cost associated with pre-registration testing activities of small businesses. The amendment will generate an annualized average savings of $114,426 per year or $3,946 annually per stakeholder, representing a present value of $803,682 in savings over 10 years.
This amendment meets the fundamental objective of reducing regulatory burden on developers of new oilseed soybean and forage crop varieties and facilitating market entry. It will also achieve the objective of removing the confusion between suspension and cancellation of variety registration, as identified by the SJCSR.
The removal of pre-registration testing and merit assessment from forage and soybean variety applications will impact stakeholders within the seeds and crops industries, including public and private variety developers, seed suppliers, seed growers, the CFIA, and the soybean and forage crop recommending committees. Most of the impact will take the form of benefits, including removal of the time delays and uncertainties associated with the current regulatory requirements, savings from pre-registration testing fees, faster commercialization of new varieties, and faster return on research and development investment. This will reduce business risk, improve the ability of developers to adapt to changing markets (e.g. increased yields, disease resistance, niche markets), and realize an earlier and more significant return on their investment.
Though this amendment will benefit both large multinational and small local breeding companies, the smaller companies will see more benefit as the reduced costs for variety registration will represent greater relative savings. They will also be able to recoup the costs of their breeding programs faster as pedigreed seed will be available earlier, allowing them to stay competitive within the market. This amendment may also increase the number of varieties being registered by smaller companies as they will not have to decide which varieties they can afford to send for pre-registration testing. In general, this regulatory change will allow farmers faster access to a wider selection of new varieties produced by both large and small breeding programs.
Movement of oilseed soybeans and forages to Part III may not result in any significant cost savings for Government. While the removal of merit assessment under Part III will marginally reduce the length of time to review individual oilseed soybean and forage applications by the CFIA staff, there may also be a corresponding and offsetting increase in the number of applications for registrations.
Consumers and businesses beyond the agriculture sector will not be affected by the regulatory amendment.
9. Implementation, enforcement and service standards
This amendment will come into force upon registration.
The movement of oilseed soybeans and forages to Part III will not affect the CFIA’s ability to monitor, trace and regulate the sale of seed of varieties in the marketplace and related compliance and enforcement actions. This amendment will not impact current implementation and enforcement activities.
Once implemented, applications for registration of all new oilseed soybean and forage varieties will be made without the requirement for pre-registration testing data or recommendation of merit from the recommending committee.
Compliance with the amendments will continue to be achieved through the registration of new oilseed soybean and forage varieties. The CFIA’s established service standard to process a complete application and register a new variety is eight weeks. The time required for the CFIA to process applications varies depending on the extent of review required, degree of completeness of the applications and the number of applications pending at any one time. The applicant’s response time to requests for additional information may lengthen the time required to register a variety. For oilseed soybean and forage crops, the time for the CFIA staff to review the variety application package will be somewhat reduced, as there would no longer be requirements for submission of testing and merit assessment data. However, there will be a corresponding and offsetting increase in the number of applications for registration. The CFIA will continue to track application review times to verify the service standard is being met.
Notification of the amendment will be posted on the CFIA’s Web site and distributed to seed stakeholders currently on the CFIA’s email distribution list which is continually updated. The CFIA will also communicate and coordinate directly with the current oilseed soybean and forage variety registration recommending committees as these groups will no longer require official recognition by the CFIA as recommending bodies. The CFIA notifications will include seed and crop sector associations, plant breeders and developers of varieties, seed analysts, grain and crop producers, provincial crop specialists, crop specific associations, the CFIA staff and federal government departments and agencies as appropriate.
Field Crops and Inputs Division
Plant Health and Biosecurity Directorate
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
59 Camelot Drive


Tree planting is one of the simplest and most effective ways of tackling climate change caused by greenhouse gas.
As trees grow they absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. When communities plant trees they can help đồ sộ reduce the impacts of climate change in their local area and around the world.
Our work đồ sộ help communities plant trees is planned carefully so sánh that issues lượt thích water availability and the suitability of tree species đồ sộ the local area are taken into trương mục. In almost all cases, indigenous trees will be the first choice for planting, though sometimes hardy, exotic species will be introduced.
Bạn đang xem: planting trees can contribute to reducing global warming
We also make sure that trees are planted in the height of the rainy season and when there is already moisture in the soil, giving the trees the best chance of survival.
In Ethiopia, communities supported by World Vision plant indigenous trees - such as Erythrina and Podocarpus - in highland areas. In countries lượt thích Senegal, native Baobab and Bauhinia species are planted and revived with careful pruning.
In some places it is better đồ sộ help communities đồ sộ revive damaged trees or vegetation phàn nàn đồ sộ plant new seedlings. In most cases, this is quicker and cheaper because the existing trees have already established their root systems.
Xem thêm: tác dụng của từ láy
This story was originally published on the 1st of September 2011.
Xem thêm: cách tính cạnh huyền tam giác vuông
LEFT: Hassou has learned how đồ sộ regenerate indigenous trees on his farm as a way of boosting soil fertility; RIGHT: Seven-year-old Koubra is helping đồ sộ plant mango seedlings in her village in Chad.


he Future of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past decade. Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, this film examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world’s food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
In the last thirty years global demand for food has doubled. In a race to feed the planet, scientists have discovered how to manipulate DNA, the blueprint of life, and produce what they claim are stronger, more disease-resistant crops. However, fears that Genetically Modified Food may not be safe for humans or the environment has sparked violent protest. Are we participating in a dangerous global nutritional experiment? This informative film helps the viewer decide if the production of genetically modified food is a panacea for world hunger or a global poison.


Fertilizers are used in agriculture to speed the growth of plants and increase their yield by supplying the plants with the main essential nutrients NPK (nitrate, phosphorus and potassium). Traditional fertilizers include natural products such as manure or chalk, while nowadays mostly the organic fertilizer Urea as well as chemical products or mineral fertilizers (NPK-fertilizers) such as Ammonium nitrate, -sulphate and -phosphate are applied.
Grinding fertilizers is used mostly as a granulation step. Bauermeister Mills are widely used for grinding Urea, however Ammonium nitrate, sulphate as well as other chemical fertilizers can be granulated as well. A typical required fertilizer particle size is in granules from 2 to 4 mm. Bauermeister Roller Mills provide the ideal technology for achieving this granulation while generating a minimized amount of dust. If a very fine distribution is required, Bauermeister Universal Mills are the optimal choice.
A high number of Bauermeister mills are in operation for the grinding of Urea and chemical fertilizers all around the world. Depending on the product, required granulation and output rate an optimal combination of milling parameters is available. These can be determined in trial grindings in our Technology Center. The decision for one of the many different grinding plant variations depends on the general conditions as well as the requirements of the customer. Bauermeister specialists will gladly assist you in the assessment of these characteristics and help chose the correct mill and plant type that matches your requirements.


The Global Challenges Research Fund, a UK government organisation created to address problems faced by developing countries has started a £2 million project to help preserve the Mekong Delta in the south of Vietnam, as well as the country’s northern Red River Delta and the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Delta in India and Bangladesh.
Launched at a British Embassy event in Hanoi last week, the Living Deltas Hub project recognises the three deltas as major food sources and aims to protect them from excessive exploitation and the resulting environmental degradation. The project is intended to promote sustainable development and combat short-sighted practices in the deltas such as uncontrolled sand dredging.
In the meantime, Mekong Delta authorities have been fighting a losing battle with severe drought and salinity this season. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the rainy season in the delta last year was shorter than usual and the total rainfall was 8 percent below the average. Seawater has intruded as far as 110 kilometres inland and affected up to 40 percent of the total delta area, with farmers already planting for a new crop and therefore in need of large amounts of fresh water.
Known as Vietnam’s rice granary, the Mekong Delta is the nation’s most fertile region and the whole country relies on its productivity. To counter ill effects of saltwater intrusion, the region has been provided with more than 20,000 water tanks and the authorities are planning to implement a whole range of protective measures, such as installing 1,600 kilometres of water supply pipes, digging wells and freshwater lakes as well as building a system of temporary dams to keep saltwater out of the delta.
However, the Ministry of Agriculture has also hinted that farmers might need to start switching to crops that would be more suited to the current climatic situation. Whether anyone likes it or not, change is coming to the Mekong Delta.


On our most recent fish-sampling endeavor, we sampled a creek that ran through a farm belonging to Maribel, one of the women who work here at ANAI. About 5 minutes into the sampling, rain began pouring down, so we went up to Maribel’s house to wait for the stream to clear up. She took us on a tour of her farm, where she was growing starfruit, pineapples (baby pineapples are so cute!), guavas, sugar cane, and a whole bunch of other things. My favorite part was the “miracle fruit” – a sweet little red berry that you can eat. After you eat the berry, everything that you eat tastes sweet. I was skeptical, but I ate the berry, followed by a lemon. The lemon tasted so sweet I gobbled it down. Amazing… I wonder if there was some sort of chemical reaction between the berry and the acid of the lemon?
We had rice and beans for lunch, and Maribel climbed a palm tree (with a ladder) and hacked down a bunch of coconuts using a machete. She then chiseled each coconut into a little cup, so that we could drink the coconut milk.


No products in the cart.
This organic Enzyme is made from peel extract of the wet waste of vegetables. it increases the pollination rate in the plant increase quality and quantity of fruit in the plant.
There are no reviews yet.
Your review *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Vermi compost || kenchua khaad pack of 1kg
Flower growth booster | Flower booster 400 gm
Gobar khaad pack of 15 kg
Jaivik khaad || 5 kg by organic interior
Neem Khaad (Organic fertilizer) 1 KG
Vermi compost || kenchua khaad pack of 5kg
Cocopeat 5 kg brick
Jaivik amrutam by organic interior
Username or email address *
Lost your password?
Email address *


When you think of a farmer, do you picture someone tilling the land, riding a tractor across a field, and checking each one of their cows or chickens to make sure they are healthy and happy? Or do you picture someone monitoring AI sensors, checking apps, and testing the latest gadgets?
If you know your farm trends, it’s both—and more.
Today’s farmers check their livestock with the help of modern technology and use sensors to identify where and when the land needs to be tilled. In fact, a variety of STEAM concepts are employed, from engineering solutions for water usage problems to tapping into biology trends in order to create eco-friendly new crops.
If you had a chance to check out our May Creator of the Month, Dan Harth at Ipswich Libraries in Australia, you might recognize some of these ideas. Dan’s game, Future Farm, teaches players about STEAM skills while challenging them to imagine what a farm centuries in the future might look like.
Back to the present: Today’s agricultural technology and science is more advanced than ever, and modern farmers are adopting new tools, approaches, and techniques to improve the food production process.
Agtech Investment Continues to Grow
Agriculture technology (agtech) is a lucrative market and powerful driver of both innovation and investment. Investments in agriculture technology grew 29 percent in 2017, researchers at AgFunder report. Agriculture startups received a record $10.1 billion in investments last year, though the total number of deals actually dropped 17 percent. Investors made larger bets on fewer companies, instead of spreading out their funds to see what works.
Agtech is growing just as strongly as fintech, medtech, and any other “tech” you can think of. Agriculture startups aren’t limited to Silicon Valley, but are also found across the United States and globally, with farmers and innovators working together.
The Silicon Valley AgTech conference draws more than 700 attendees each year to present their businesses and discuss industry trends, while the World Agri-Tech Innovation Summit in San Francisco boasts more than 1,000 delegates, 80 speakers, and 1,500 one-on-one meetings to discuss everything from global agtech potential to blockchain. It will host an additional event in London in October 2018.
So what are all of these agtech professionals developing? What are the next great technological advances that will help farmers? The answers aren’t too far away from what you likely use or hear about every day.
Engineers are Developing Self-Driving Tractors
One of the first places most people will recognize consumer technology helping farming is the development of self-driving tractors. John Deere has been developing a driverless tractor since the mid-1990s. The company wanted a simple model that would drive down a field and turn, but realized how hard it was to replicate a farmer’s instincts.
“We have to have the ability to sense everything the human would inside of the system related to the quality of the job,” Dan Leibfried, director of embedded solutions at the John Deere Intelligent Solutions Group, says.
Even with more than 20 years of autonomous development experience, they still haven’t perfected the product. John Deere, for instance, sells autonomous combines (which harvest grain), but the vehicles still require a person in the driver’s seat, monitoring the process on a camera. Humans are still needed to override the system when something goes wrong.
Many of the trends that consumers see on store shelves and in the news are reflected in farm technology.
“Some of the new sensors that help you autonomously park your car, parallel park, backup sensors, cameras and things like that — all that stuff — the cost has come way down on it and it’s allowed us to leverage it more in our machines,” Matt Rushing, product line vice president at Global Crop Care tells CNBC.
As this technology advances, it will move into the agtech world, and will continue to become more affordable to farmers who are careful about their investments when it comes to their crops.
Farmers Use AI to Monitor Their Crops
Technology has given rise to the trend of “digital agriculture,” where sensors report on crops in real time, almost like a Facebook newsfeed. These tools alert farmers to how much rain has fallen recently, where nutrients in the soil are lacking, and what crops are growing slowly.
“Information on the farm is now being collected the same way we collect information on our cellphones or our iPads,” Mike Stern, CEO of The Climate Corporation, which develops these apps, tells CNNMoney. With this data, farmers can make decisions on how to improve the growing process, and can easily see how their crops are doing across as many as 40 fields without having to physically view them.
Farmers also use AI to receive alerts related to their crops in order to monitor them more closely. CNNTech recently profiled NatureSweet, a tomato company that uses AI to reduce pests and diseases within its greenhouses. The company says the technology will eventually improve the greenhouse tomato yield by 20 percent.
Before the technology was implemented, NatureSweet’s 8,000 employees had to walk through the greenhouses and check for problems. This was an expensive and slow process, with inspections only taking place once a week. Now, the plants are monitored 24/7 and cameras recognize signs of trouble, such as dying plants or insect infestations, so growers can intervene before it’s too late.
As AI sensors become more common in the market, and therefore easier to use and affordable, farmers will be able to invest in them and operate their farms more efficiently. This leads to less waste and better yields.
“State of the art smart farming solutions and new Internet of Things (IoT) technologies are enabling many American growers to take a more sustainable approach to the monitoring of livestock, crops, and soil conditions,” Betsy Huber, president of rural advocacy group National Grange, writes. “These technologies are transforming rural America by increasing the quality, quantity, and cost-effectiveness of agricultural production.”
The results mean better produce for consumers and increased income for American farmers.
AI Also helps With Livestock
Technology can also help when it comes to cattle.
For example, Moocall is an agtech startup that created IoT sensors for pregnant cows. Strapped onto the animal’s tail, the device measures tail movement to predict the onset of calving, alerting the farmer when a cow is about to give birth. The technology allows farmers to intervene quickly and help deliver the calf safely. More than 15,000 farms use Moocall worldwide, freeing farmers from continually checking the status of the cow in person.
Moocall isn’t the only wearable technology used to help cows. In an article for the Financial Times, Nic Fildes writes that “smart cows” have all kinds of wearable tech. Some gadgets measure movement to determine an animal’s health, while another company measures digestive health through a monitor in the cow’s rumen, or first stomach. There are even udder sensors to monitor the quality of the milk.
These tools are also of particular interest to animal welfare groups. Not only do cow and calf survival rates increase, but the human helpers can identify problems early on and take steps to reduce the pain or prevent illness that could lead to death.
Some Farmers Are Tapping into Bug Crops
While many farmers grow crops to keep up with consumer demand, other farmers, organizations, and scientists are working to change what we eat to protect the environment. Environmental science is an essential part of growing crops and livestock, and without it most farmers wouldn’t produce a successful yield. One trend on the rise in North America and Europe is the growth of insects for human consumption.
Naak is a company in Quebec that makes cricket-powered energy bars. They recently highlighted the benefits of raising insects over beef on the natural world:
- Crickets require 12x less food than beef to reach maturity.
- Crickets require 2000x less water than beef to reach maturity, taking into account the water needed for the crops they eat.
- Crickets also release 100x fewer greenhouse emissions than cows.
Some farmers are already investing in cricket science and growth, as insect advocates push them to move toward more eco-friendly livestock.
For example, Jarrod Goldin is the cofounder of Entomo Farms in Ontario, Canada, an operation that has three barns about 20,000 feet in size. The company raises and sells crickets, including whole crickets to snack on, cricket flour, and cricket protein powder.
“In terms of the mechanization on the farming side, there isn’t much precedent out there,” Goldin says. “We’ve really had to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty and figure things out on our own.”
Unfortunately, many American consumers still get caught up in the “ick factor” at the thought of eating insects. This is why companies like Naak add them to protein bars and Entomo Farms creates a variety of recipe guides. They aren’t alone. Brooklyn Bugs is dedicated to raising awareness about edible insects, and even hosts a festival to get kids excited about the taste and crunch of their favorite bugs.
Technology Can Reduce Water Usage
Regardless of the types of crops or livestock grown, more farmers than ever are concerned about water usage. Agriculture represents 70 percent of all worldwide water use, and consumers get a large percentage of water from their food. However, water is growing increasingly precious and more farmers are turning to reduction and optimization options to reduce their water use.
“Thanks to modern science, agriculture has been learning a great deal about the life cycle of our planet and has been researching and developing ways to reduce water usage on the farm and ranch,” Logan Hawkes at Southwest Farm Press writes.
In an article for Successful Farming, Laurie Bedord profiled one Kansas farmer who was looking to reduce his water consumption to protect the local aquifer. He implemented a voluntary 33 percent reduction of water use and said he would try to reach 50 percent if he maintained the same yield and profit margins. Bedord highlighted a few key technologies that Kansas farmers are using to do more with less:
- Investing in drip irrigation technology to reduce evaporation loss.
- Installing moisture sensors to see how thirsty crops really are.
- Rotating crops and increasing investment in crops that use less water.
Even with the help of technological investments, local farmers need to use careful planning, decision making, and critical thinking to ensure a successful crop.
Kansas isn’t alone in these innovations. California has faced severe droughts over the past few years, forcing almond farmers to reduce their water usage to comply with state guidelines. Fortunately, farmers in the area have been testing different options for decades to reduce their “water footprint.”
“Water footprint is a theoretical approach for determining the amount of water – direct and indirect – used in the production of a product.” Gabriele Ludwig of the Almond Board of California says. For reference, in the past 20 years, almond farmers have reduced the amount of water needed to grow one pound of almonds by 33 percent.
These technological advancements can be shared across the country and across the globe. A successful method to reduce water use on one farm in the US can be shared to help preserve water in drought-stricken regions nationally in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.


Prospect magazine of the UK has a compelling piece, from the European viewpoint on genetically modified food and its wrongheaded opposition.
The real GM food scandal
by Dick Taverne
GM foods are safe, healthy and essential if we ever want to achieve decent living standards for the world’s growing population. Misplaced moralising about them in the west is costing millions of lives in poor countries
Dick Taverne is the author of The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism (OUP)
Seven years ago, Time magazine featured the Swiss biologist Ingo Potrykus on its cover. As the principal creator of genetically modified rice—or “golden rice”—he was hailed as potentially one of mankind’s great benefactors. Golden rice was to be the start of a new green revolution to improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in the world. It would help remedy vitamin A deficiency, the cause of 1-2m deaths a year, and could save up to 500,000 children a year from going blind. It was the flagship of plant biotechnology. No other scientific development in agriculture in recent times held out greater promise.
Seven years later, the most optimistic forecast is that it will take another five or six years before golden rice is grown commercially. The realisation of Potrykus’s dream keeps receding. The promised benefits from other GM crops that should reduce hunger and disease have been equally elusive. GM crops should now be growing in areas where no crops can grow: drought-resistant crops in arid soil and salt-resistant crops in soil of high salinity. Plant-based oral vaccines should now be saving millions of deaths from diarrhoea and hepatitis B; they can be ingested in orange juice, bananas or tomatoes, avoiding the need for injection and for trained staff to administer them and refrigeration to store them.
Your correspondent has long been more aware of this complex issue than the average blogger on the street. Some years ago, MUDGE logged a five-year stint at a science-based organization whose parent was one of the foremost corporate proponents of this world-changing technology. Indeed, I probably would be there still, had not the forces of creative destruction, i.e., capitalism, broken up that good old gang of mine through “merger” and acquisition.
Proximity to the technology, and a modicum of intellectual curiosity resulted in slightly more than superficial awareness of the issue and its controversies. And the controversy has been noisy enough to make one believe that distribution of such technology has been suppressed. But,
Seldom has public perception been more out of line with the facts. The public in Britain and Europe seems unaware of the astonishing success of GM crops in the rest of the world. No new agricultural technology in recent times has spread faster and more widely. Only a decade after their commercial introduction, GM crops are now cultivated in 22 countries on over 100m hectares (an area more than four times the size of Britain) by over 10m farmers, of whom 9m are resource-poor farmers in developing countries, mainly India and China. Most of these small-scale farmers grow pest-resistant GM cotton. In India alone, production tripled last year to over 3.6m hectares. This cotton benefits farmers because it reduces the need for insecticides, thereby increasing their income and also improving their health. It is true that the promised development of staple GM food crops for the developing world has been delayed, but this is not because of technical flaws. It is principally because GM crops, unlike conventional crops, must overcome costly, time-consuming and unnecessary regulatory obstacles before they can be licensed.
And the demonizing of GM technology has no foundation in science.
The fact is that there is not a shred of any evidence of risk to human health from GM crops. Every academy of science, representing the views of the world’s leading experts—the Indian, Chinese, Mexican, Brazilian, French and American academies as well as the Royal Society, which has published four separate reports on the issue—has confirmed this. Independent inquiries have found that the risk from GM crops is no greater than that from conventionally grown crops that do not have to undergo such testing. In 2001, the research directorate of the EU commission released a summary of 81 scientific studies financed by the EU itself—not by private industry—conducted over a 15-year period, to determine whether GM products were unsafe or insufficiently tested: none found evidence of harm to humans or to the environment.
[Please click the link below for the complete article — but then please come on back!]
‘The real GM food scandal’, Prospect Magazine issue 140 November 2007 – Printer Friendly Article
In the analysis considered here, the thesis is proposed that the large agribusinesses planted the seeds, as it were, of their own difficulties promoting this technology due to their own public-relations (rather than science) based caution.
And MUDGE remembers distinctly the emotional and distracting case of the supposed endangerment of monarch butterflies due to GM corn.
And what has always grabbed this non-scientist observer is that, throughout the history of agriculture (which encompasses the development of modern humankind) farmers have cross-bred and otherwise genetically modified their crops. What modern technology offers the process is predictability and repeatability.
So, as we hope you’ve taken the trouble to read to the end, the author expresses some hope that people are finally coming to their senses regarding the issue of GM crops.
There can be little doubt that GM crops will be accepted worldwide in time, even in Europe. But in delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price. Their opposition has undermined agrobusiness in Europe and has driven abroad much research into plant biotechnology—an area in which Britain formerly excelled. Over-regulation may well cause the costs of the technology to remain higher than they need be. Above all, delay has caused the needless loss of millions of lives in the developing world. These lobbies and their friends in the organic movement have much to answer for.
So, once again, seemingly well-informed people are proven to be misinformed. Hardly shocking anymore, but very, very disturbing.
Africans and others in the developing world are starving, people! GM crops can be engineered to use less pesticide, less fertilizer, less water (the last great resource battleground), to get more, and better, food into the empty stomachs of the world.
Wake up and pay attention, you enemies of science!
It’s it for now. Thanks,


Fit2cook has worked with the following organisations developing and running innovative food education projects such as those listed below.
We have also worked with local show organisations, The Romsey Food Show, The Alresford Show and The Watercress Festival running hands-on events for children.
fit2cook has worked with large commercial food companies like Alresford Salads, developing food education projects that reach out to local communities and give children hands-on opportunities to see how certain foods like are grown and used.
fit2cook has developed and run a variety of food and farming projects in conjunction with Hampshire Country Learning (now The Country Trust). These “field to fork” projects for schools have focused on learning about different locally produced foods.
fit2cook has run workshops and training courses for primary schools, pre-schools and Children’s Centres across Hampshire. We are an Hampshire County Council vendor.
fit2cook has worked with agricultural students at Sparsholt Agricultural College running a project that links the world of agriculture to the food industry, looking at how to add value to farm produce.
fit2cook has run a variety of workshops for The National Trust at their Winchester City Mill giving children hands on experience baking with the mill's own flour.
fit2cook has run several training courses for the pre-school Learning Alliance showing their pre school leaders easy ways to bring cooking into the curriculum of under 5's.
fit2cook has worked with The Southern Co-operative for a number of years now as our main sponsor of The Create and Cook competition. They have helped us develop the Competition to schools and local food communities across the South.
© 2014 fit2cook - All Rights Reserved - fit2cook is a trading name of Seablue Media Ltd
Registered in England Company No 6014187 | VAT Reg No 897 0956 59
Terms and Conditions | Web design by Apollo Internet Media


Common Dandelion and Wild Rocket – Introducing Wild Weeds through Familiar Food into People’s Diet: Wild Weeds Simple Pesto Pasta Recipe
We are creatures of habit. Along with this fact, tradition plays into our being in the world. To see this play out in the “real world” just see all the food debates about people who “do not follow tradition”. That is, people who do not follow a recipe that has become tradition will be in big trouble with people, especially, on the internet.
But this is not a bad thing. We can use this clinging to tradition and the familiar to our advantage. It is no secret that our modern diets lack nutritious food. Even the “whole foods” people promote as healthy can sometimes lack the nutritional punch that the wild ancestors or counterparts have. Thus, my favourite wild leaves or herbs: the common dandelion and wild rocket. In the following post, I will briefly give some general health and nutrition information about the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and wild rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia). I will then give my take on why I think the way in which I propose people to add wild weeds/herbs into their diet is beneficial and important not to scare people away. I will then give a recipe at the end of how I make a pesto from wild rocket and dandelion leaves and how I use this in a simple pasta recipe. If you are interested in this topic, please read along! Hopefully, you learn something new.
(A word of caution. Never eat something from the wild. Even though you can positively identify a plant/herb/weed it does not mean you know the growing medium and growing condition of the plant. Eat only what you can (i) identify, and (ii) know that you planted it, or (iii) know the growing medium and growing condition. Plants can store dangerous compounds in their leaves and roots and seeds if they are exposed to it. I am also not an expert; I only know that I know from the internet and my own experience. Do your own research, and do not eat anything you do not know where it came from, how it grew, and who planted it.)
My Approach to Weeds and Wild Herbs
I have been gardening for a couple of years now. My interest in wild herbs and weeds have grown tremendously in the last 2 years. I have done so much research, watched videos on the internet and read so much work on wild weeds and herbs that grow in my area (South Africa). It is fascinating how nature works, and how abundant food sources are when you begin to get familiar with different weeds/herbs. (I use the word weeds because most people are familiar with it, but I think the reasoning behind calling it weeds are fundamentally wrong. However, this is a philosophical discussion, not one suited for this topic! I digress. On with my approach to gardening.) The clearest thing about nature, according to my own experience and research, is that plants do not grow in monocultures. Plants, especially the native fynbos that grow here, always grow alongside many different plants.
I have tried this approach with especially the common dandelions. I take the seeds and utilise its own dispersing mechanism. I blow on the dandelion like we all did as children and let it populate my garden. See the photograph below of how a dandelion started to grow between the African Daisy flower:
Here is another type of African Daisy (the grey one) and the dandelion taking root next to it:
I feel that growing my wild herbs this way, there is a double benefit: It helps the soil health, and I think that the plants get more nutritious due to the soil health. I have tried to get information on this topic, but I have never really found any studies on it. (If you know about studies that compare crops grown in “healthier” soil vs. “poor” soil, please let me know in the comments.) I thus disperse my herbs between the indigenous fynbos plants, and I have not seen any adverse effects on them. In fact, everything is growing so healthy and strong.
The Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)
I have slowly been cultivating dandelion seeds. I select the best-looking seeds and disperse them in the garden. It is always interesting to see how even if I do this, different size plants grow. In any case, herewith some information about the common dandelion. I get all my information from an awesome website called Plants For A Future (PFAF), go over there to have a look at the great resources they have. According to PFAF the dandelion leaf is a::
A very nutritious food, 100g of the raw leaves contain about 2.7g. protein, 9.2g. carbohydrate, 187mg Calcium, 66mg phosphorus, 3.1mg iron, 76mg sodium, 397mg potassium, 36mg magnesium, 14000iu vitamin A, 0.19mg vitamin B1, 0.26mg vitamin B2, 35mg vitamin C
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information, but this seems to be very healthy! Getting in touch with nature is also very important. I think the added benefit of seeing things grow, and knowing that you helped the progress along, is good for your mental health. (More on the mental health aspect of gardening in a future post!)
A Small Diversion: How I Spread the Seeds throughout the Garden
In the image below you can see how I disperse the seeds throughout the garden. I do not know where the seed will grow a new plant, but I do know that there will be new plants!
Wild Rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia)
Wild rocket must be my number one favourite herb. Like the common dandelion, this herb has spread throughout my garden. It has very little seeds, and the seeds pods break open when they are dried. I do not always have the time to harvest the seeds, so I let them go wild. I have various patches in the garden where wild rocket spring up. This plant also packs a punch nutrition wise. According to Wikipedia wild rocket the nutrition of wild rocket:
Wild rocket is high in ascorbic acid, carotenoids, polyphenols and glucosinolates (above all glucosativin and glucoerucin, which are the cause of the pungent flavour). When the leaves are chewed glucosinolates, through the enzyme myrosinase, are metabolized in isothyocyanates and indole
A Small Diversion: Bruising and Tearing the Leaves and not Cutting Them
If my memory serves me right, broccoli gets healthier when you chew on the raw vegetable. The act of chewing releases compounds in the vegetable which would not have been there if you cut it. The same with garlic. The act of bruising the garlic clove releases the compound allicin which would also not have been there if you did not bruise it. And in the culinary world, basil leaves become more flavourful, especially in a pesto, if you bruise and break the leaves. Cutting the leaves of throwing it in a food processor would yield a lower grade product. And here, according to the Wikipedia article, the process of chewing the leaves of wild rocket, produces compounds that would not have been present if you did not chew it. Hence, my preference to use the mortar and pestle and breaking the leaves rather than cutting them with a knife.
A Quick Note on Introducing Wild Weeds/Herbs in Your Diet
It is not secret that modern people’s palates are overly adapted for sugar. Humans and most animals have a sweet tooth, but the availability of sugary foods have skyrocketed, and people do not like bitter food. Bitter food is also a sign that you should maybe avoid the food, as it might be poison. But as in the case with wild rocket and the common dandelion, behind the bitter taste, there are various nutritional bonusses. Getting people to like these foods are not easy. People also do not want the bitter food if they can have a sweeter alternative. But if you swop the normal ingredients with the wild counterpart, you can sometimes “hide” the bitter and wild taste. And this is how I think people should go about diversifying their diet. And this goes back to the beginning of the post where I talked about tradition and habit. Take today’s recipe. Pesto has become synonymous with basil, olive oil, garlic, pine nuts, and parmesan cheese. There is an element of habit and tradition linked to this food. People become very hostile and aggressive when you mix with the recipe. And rightly so, but clinging too tight to tradition and habit stifles creativity. But it also stifles the possibility of introducing different foods into your diet. Let me move on towards the recipe!
(The different leaf shapes always fascinates me. There is a theory of alternating the shapes of leaves you eat, but I will discuss this in a future post.)
Wild Rocket and Common Dandelion Pesto Pasta Recipe
For this recipe you will need:
- Wild rocket leaves
- Dandelion leaves
- Cooked pasta
- Salt and pepper
- Pasta water
(My harvest for the pesto. It is not much, but it packs a punch flavor and nutrition-wise!)
I am not going to go into any detail how to make a pesto nor how to cook pasta. Instead, I am going to briefly explain how to swop out different elements in a dish to activate your creative brain. Pesto literally means to crush or to pound. Modern pesto consists out of basil, olive oil, pine nuts, and parmesan cheese. In your journey to creatively thinking about recipes and to incorporate wild herbs into your diet, you can swop the basil leaves with dandelion and wild rocket leaves. If you have your own alternative nut sources, use that! My reasoning is simple: break a recipe down into its individual components and see what you can swop out to incorporate wild herbs and wild edible plants. Even though basil itself is very healthy, I think the variation and addition of wild rocket and dandelion leaves make it even more nutritious, especially if you alternate between basil and wild herb pestos. Herewith some images of the process I followed to make this simple dish.
(I add the dandelion-wild rocket pesto to the cooked pasta.)
(Add some pasta water, and the warmth of the added pasta water and pasta will melt and make a delicious sauce.)
I hope you give this a try, and that you might begin to incorporate different wild herbs into your diet. Again, be very cautious, do your own research, but do not be scared to experiment (responsibly)! Modern consumerism and logistical supply chains are not always suited for delicate leaves, and the storing, freezing etc., of these leaves deplete the nutrition. Fresh is best, and if you cannot grow it yourself, find a friend or family member who can! Be safe, and be healthy.


Skip to content
Images of the Day:
Americans first became aware of the possible hazards of widespread pesticide use with the publication in 1962 of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. In the book, which became a national best-seller, Carson argued that many pesticides in use on farms and timberlands had unknown and cumulative toxic effects. Because so little was known about the effects of these chemicals, Carson said, their use should be curtailed. — Pesticide Controversies
Pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals and mechanization are the basic ingredients of agribusiness in the United States. The initial thrust into large scale farming resulted in a large increase in productivity of food. But industry has gotten on the chemical treadmill where larger and larger capital investments of more and more fertilizers and pesticides are needed to maintain production while water supplies are becoming more and more polluted by these chemicals. The chemicals not only get into the water supply — they also become part of our food supply. One by-product of food production is cancer. Prior to the introduction of large-scale chemical farming, one third of all crops were lost to weeds, bacteria, and insects. Today, after the constant increase in chemical use, one third of all crops are still lost to weeds, bacteria, and insects as they become resistant to the chemicals. — Roland Sheppard, The Environment and Cuba
Since the 1970s, U.S. agriculture has achieved enhanced productivity, but has also experienced greater variability in crop yields, prices, and farm income. The changes in variability are, in part, climate-related, either directly (through extreme weather events) or indirectly (due to agricultural pests and diseases).
Extreme weather events have caused severe crop damage and have exacted a significant economic toll for U.S. farmers over the last 20 years. Total estimated damages, of which agricultural losses are a part, from the 1988 summer drought were on the order of $56 billion (normalized to 1998 dollars using an inflation wealth index), while those from the 1993 Mississippi River Valley floods exceeded $23 billion.
Both pest damage and pesticide use have increased since 1970. Nationally, in the 1990s, pests were estimated to have destroyed about one third of our crops, in spite of advances in pest control technology over the last half century.
The ranges of several important crop pests in the U.S., including the soybean cyst nematode [the most destructive soybean pest in the U.S.] and corn gray leaf blight [the major disease causing corn yield losses] have expanded since the early 1970s, possibly in response, in part, to climate trends.
Pest and disease occurrences often coincide with extreme weather events and with anomalous weather conditions, such as early or late rains, and decreased or increased humidity, which by themselves can alter agricultural output. Recent climate trends, such as increased nighttime and winter temperatures, may be contributing to the greater prevalence of crop pests.
Videos of the Day:
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘Let us pray.’ We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. — Desmond Tutu
The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth. — William Howitt, Colonisation and Christianity: A Popular History of the Treatment of the Natives by the Europeans in all their Colonies.
Tribe to Continue Fight After Court Refuses to Halt Dakota Access Pipeline by Daniel A. MedinaIndigenous People Have Rights: Why It’s Time to Abolish Columbus Day Most school curricula teach students to celebrate colonialism and racism. Enough. The movement to abolish Columbus Day and to establish in its place Indigenous Peoples Day continues to gather strength, as every month new school districts and colleges take action. This campaign has been given new momentum as Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas assert their treaty and human rights. Especially notable is the inspiring struggle in North Dakota to stop the toxic Dakota Access Pipeline, led by the Standing Rock Sioux. By Bill Bigelow Dismantling Columbus and the Power of the Present Though Christopher Columbus never set foot in what is now the United States, Columbus Day is hailed as a symbol of the founding of the country. And without question, his arrival unleashed the Christian Doctrine of Discovery — a colonial invention of European international law that legitimated genocide, enslavement and the expropriation of Indigenous homelands. By Jaskiran Dhillon and Siku Allooloo
Black Liberation/ Civil Rights:
What is Money? — Part one What is money? Where does it come from? and what does it represent? by Adam Booth
What is Money? — Part two The labour theory of value In the second part of his series looking at the role of money within capitalist society, Adam Booth explores the questions of value, alienation, and profit in order to develop a more in-depth understanding about the nature of money. By Adam Booth World:
Land of the Free? Harvard Study Ranks America Worst in the West for Fair Elections The Electoral Integrity Project (EIP)’s 2015 Year in Elections report is an independent research project by 2,000 elections experts from Harvard University and the University of Sydney in Australia assembled to examine the world’s elections. The EIP states that “the core notion of ‘electoral integrity’ refers to agreed international principles and standards of elections, applying universally to all countries worldwide throughout the electoral cycle, including during the pre-electoral period, the campaign, and on polling day and its aftermath. Conversely, ‘electoral malpractice’ refers to violations of electoral integrity.” By Claire Bernish


We can be living within the Promises of God before those promises are manifested.
We do not have to wait for the manifestation in order to live within the miracle.
There is a time for Everything! (Ecc. 3:1)
Often times it takes a considerable amount of time for a farmer to prepare the soil to receive the seed to be planted. Soil preparation also has a season for it to take place.
Spring is the time prepare the soil. We turn it over, cultivate it, fertilize it, plant the best seed we possess. The character and integrity of the seed we plant will be replicated manifold times during harvest, good or bad.
There are laws of new birth created by God , established (Natural and Spiritual) that must be adhered to in order for the intended results to occur.
Each of the seasons of our lives have a sequential order that cannot be altered, else we get results inferior to the intended one by God.
Man can genetically alter the character of the seed in order to develop a new and perhaps improved crop for many good reasons, but there will never be another approach to righteousness and salvation except through the work of the Cross in our lives.
Like the farmer and his crop, there is an order and approved process by which God will approve, bless.
Let’s not be mistaken, the Crop or Harvest is not the only thing The Father is interested in. It is ourselves, as individuals as well as collectively, that He has painstakingly watched over so that the transforming into His likeness in completed.


Sim Farm for Android
More About Sim Farm Game
Sim Farm Description: Farm Store is a tycoon simulation business game. In the game, design and build your own farm shop, Make all kinds of farm tools, cultivate high-quality seeds, to trade, sell, or auction to farmers from all over the world. Earn gold coins and become a world farm tycoon.
Come and build your farm shop and become the richest farm tycoon!
What's New in Sim Farm 1.1.3 >
The new version is coming, you are invited to experience it!


Kling Malz: Extensive knowledge, state-of-the-art technology, and the best raw materials
The facility has two cylindroconical separating tanks. Our Wanderhaufen-type malting plant with two germination compartments helps us to achieve a well-structured and transparent workflow. The air- and heat-coupled twin kilns ensure a gentle drying process with the lowest possible energy consumption.
At our plant in Schriesheim, we process malting barley from selected cultivation areas to produce the finest Kling Pilsner malt and high-quality diastatic malt powder for baking.
Our products range from Pilsner, Munich, and wheat malts to diastatic malt powder. Our ship dock on the Neckar River, which affords us with a direct connection to the waterway network, allows us both to export our products worldwide as well as to import brewer's barley from everywhere that it is cultivated worldwide.
At our plant in Edingen, we process brewer's barley and wheat from the best German growers to produce the finest Kling Pilsner and Munich malts as well as Kling wheat malt.
Kling Malz: the key ingredient of the best beers


Monday, October 15, 2012
Does indoor farming yield the same quality crop as conventional? Is it detrimental? Is indoor farming a good solution to organic crops production on a large and sustainable scale?
9:20 PM - Immediately what I see is that when you are growing them inside I see this roof as a barrier, and it is not letting the sun get all the way through to the plant. Even though the plants can yield nutrition, it is like they are not as nutritious as they could be. I mean in viewing this image of a greenhouse, I just feel that something is lost with having the sun being blocked, or filtered. I would say if the environment and air quality did not permit a natural outside growing environment, that indoor is a good solution. However, I feel the most nutritious food is grown outside with unaltered air and sun. 9:24 PM.


Fresh Patio tomato Planter Images – From the thousand photographs on-line with regards to patio tomato planter, we picks the best series using greatest quality just for you, and now this photos is one among photographs selections in our very best pictures gallery with regards to Fresh Patio tomato Planter Images. I am hoping you’ll want it. This particular photograph (Patio tomato Planter Luxury Growing Heirloom tomatoes In Pots Best Heirloom Varieties) previously mentioned is actually classed having: patio tomato, submitted by simply saudagar with 2018-01-16 05:02:27. To determine all pictures within Fresh Patio tomato Planter Images pictures gallery you should stick to this specific web page link. The Incredible and Stunning patio tomato planter with regard to Inspire The house Provide Home Warm DreamHouse]@
Patio Tomato Planter Luxury Growing Heirloom Tomatoes In Pots Best Heirloom Varieties Uploaded by saudagar on Tuesday, January 16th, 2018 in category Patio.
See also Patio Tomato Planter Unique Patio Planters & Container Gardens from Patio Topic.
Here we have another image Patio Tomato Planter Inspirational Grow Tomatoes In Containers featured under Patio Tomato Planter Luxury Growing Heirloom Tomatoes In Pots Best Heirloom Varieties. We hope you enjoyed it and if you want to download the pictures in high quality, simply right click the image and choose "Save As". Thanks for reading Patio Tomato Planter Luxury Growing Heirloom Tomatoes In Pots Best Heirloom Varieties.


ALL 4 SOIL/SOIL 4 ALL - Bioeconomy for soil regeneration
Soil is a non-renewable resource that is fundamental for the mitigation of climate change: however 60-70% of European soils are not healthy and 25% of land is at risk of desertification in the Mediterranean.
The conference will explore the role of circular bioeconomy as a key tool for soil regeneration, decarbonising the economy and creating value and resources from locally produced waste.
Speakers will connect to a webconference platform and the event will be live streamed. The conference will be held in English.
Chair: Alessia Acampora – Member of Re Soil Scientific Committee
- Laura Vallaro – Italian representative Fridays for Future – Soil for future generations
- Rosa Poch – Chair of the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils ITPS – Soil to decarbonise the atmosphere
- Arianna Pasa – Research Programme Officer DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Unit B2 – Research and Innovation, The EU Mission Soil Health and Food
- Giuliano Langella, CRISP Research Centre, University of Napoli Federico II, Challenging soil sealing in Europe: an innovative tool
- Catia Bastioli – Novamont CEO, Member of the EC Mission Board for Soil Health and Food – Bioeconomy for soil regeneration and Country Competitiveness
- Roberto Moncalvo – President Coldiretti Piemonte, Board Member Re Soil Foundation – Towards a sustainable agriculture
- S.P. McGrath – BSc, PhD, FISoilSci, Head of Department of Sustainable Agriculture Sciences Rothamsted Research – How land management affects how much Organic Carbon soil can hold
- Nathalie Gontard – Research director in the Agropolymer Engineering and Emerging Technologies Unit at INRAE, Soil health and plastic persistency: biodegradable plastic challenges in waste management
- Massimo Centemero – GD Consorzio Italiano Compostatori – From waste to resources (TBC)
- Lorella Rossi – Manager Technical Area, Consorzio Italiano Biogas – Circular economy in agriculture
- Andrea Magarini – Coordinator Food Policy di Milano – Circual bioeconomy in urban systems
- Damiano Di Simine – Scientific coordinator Soil4life project, Legambiente – Bioeconomy, food sustainability, climate goals are all fed by the same soil: a challenge for people, farms and businesses