The EU executive said the move would allow farmers to secure access to climate or pest-resistant crops with less fertilizers or pesticides and consumers would be able to buy food with better nutritional value or reduced levels of allergy-causing substances.

The Commission launched a review of gene-edited plants in 2021 after concluding that GMO legislation from 2001 was “not fit for purpose.”

The EU’s top court ruled in 2018 that genome-altering techniques should be governed by existing GMO rules.

The recent proposal would split new genomic technique (NGT) plants into two categories.

Those that could also occur naturally or by conventional breeding would be exempted from GMO legislation and labelling requirements. All other NGT plants would be treated as GMOs, requiring risk assessments and an authorization process.

The Commission said its proposal covered targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis, involving either mutations within the same plant species or with genetic material from a donor that could be conventionally bred with the recipient organism.

Plants produced by transgenesis, involving genetic material from a non-crossable species, would remain subject to existing GMO rules.

The proposal needs approval from the European Parliament and EU governments to enter law and may be revised.

Bayer, the world’s second-largest seeds and pesticides maker, described the Commission’s decision as “ground-breaking.”

“Plant breeding normally takes more than a decade from the first positive research results to market entry. Gene editing allows us to cut five years out of this process,” said Bayer’s head of sustainability Matthias Berninger, adding that the expected revision should speed up development.

Environmental groups and the organic market, however, say NGT plants involve genetic modification and should be carefully controlled.

A report for the European Green Party warned of higher prices and less diversity of seeds. Many GMO modifications are designed to resist herbicides, raising concern that this would lead to an increase in use of those products.

Organic certification bodies in both the EU and Canada ban gene-edited crops, the Co-operator reported in early June, and loosened regulations surrounding those crops has raised concern around organic crop integrity preservation from the sector.

“Consumers have the right to know what they buy and if they don’t like it, they have to have the right not to buy it also,” said Helene Schmutzler, a policy assistant with umbrella industry group, IFOAM Organics Europe.

In an interview with the Co-operator, Schmutzler said identification and traceability of NGTs is critical to policy. Her organization has also been calling for compensation measures should non-gene-edited crops become accidently contaminated.

In Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced in May that gene-edited crops would face a similar level of regulation to conventionally bred varieties, rather than the more stringent rules around GMOs. – With files from Geralyn Wichers

The post EU seeks revised GMO rules to loosen curbs on gene-edited crops appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The problem is that the very idea of gene-edited crops is anathema to their sector.

“The credibility of organically certified produce is built on the confidence of the shopper that they are choosing to buy organic food because the standards are rigorously maintained,” said a spokesperson for OF&G Organic, an organic certification body in the U.K.

A patchwork of international regulations is developing around gene-edited crops.

The U.K. passed the Genetic Technology Act in March. The legislation set the stage to separate gene-edited crops and animals (called “precision-bred” in the U.K.) from genetically modified organisms as far as regulations are concerned, according to a government news release.

The British government indicated the act would allow gene-edited crops to be more freely developed and grown. Regulations related to the law are now under consultation.

The European Commission, part of the executive of the EU, is undergoing its own debate on “new genomic techniques” (NGTs), an umbrella term that includes gene editing.

Organic certification bodies in the U.K. and EU do not allow gene-edited or genetically modified crops, nor does Canadian organic certification.

In Canada, where genetically modified canola, soybeans and other crops are commonly grown, organic farmers use buffer strips and co-ordinate with neighbours to avoid cross-contamination. When growers can’t obtain certified organic seed, they may obtain an affidavit from the seed company showing their seed is non-GMO.

This spring, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency released guidance on gene-edited crops that will see them regulated like conventionally bred varieties.

Groups including the Canada Organic Trade Association were not pleased when the decision did not include mandatory transparency or traceability measures for gene-edited crops.

The federal government promised a steering committee to oversee transparency and an expansion of Seeds Canada’s variety transparency database. However, the organic sector has argued that, since these measures aren’t mandated, crops will ‘sneak’ into the food system, making it impossible to ensure that organic crops aren’t contaminated.

Coexistence in the U.K.

In the EU and U.K., in contrast, GMO crops are not widely grown.

“There’s absolutely no GMO crops grown commercially in the U.K.,” said Liz O’Neill, director of GM Freeze. As a result, contamination prevention isn’t part of farmers’ business models.

GM Freeze is a U.K. umbrella group that campaigns against GM0 foods. It represents some organic groups.

While many GM0 crops are legal in the U.K., there are strict labelling requirements for food and these put off many consumers and big brands, O’Neill said. GMOs are generally limited to imported foods.

Organic groups are preparing to take greater precautions, but it’s generally viewed as the government’s responsibility to ensure organic certification can continue, O’Neill said.

Before passage of the U.K.’s March act, “OF&G urged (the) U.K. government to reassess the removal of labelling and traceability requirements,” the company’s spokesperson said. “This ‘light touch’ regulation allows gene-edited crops and animals to effectively hide in the food system, taking away consumer choice.”

“The U.K. needs a strong regulatory framework for the rollout of new genomic techniques — one that is responsibly [administrated] and rigorously applied,” the spokesperson added.

GM Freeze advocates for consumer labelling of foods containing gene-edited ingredients, O’Neill said. That would make end-to-end supply-chain traceability necessary and, in her organization’s view, would lower the risk of inadvertent contamination.

It also wants to see government measures — regulatory or guidance-based — to prevent cross-contamination of organic crops.

Coexistence in the EU

The European Commission launched a review of the EU’s rules on gene editing and GMOs in 2021 after ruling its current legislation was “not fit for purpose,” Reuters reported in April of that year.

About 20 years ago, the EU put rigid traceability and labelling requirements on GMOs due to public distrust, and these have led to low adoption of GM crops, said Helene Schmutzler, a policy assistant with IFOAM Organics Europe, an umbrella organization for the European organic food sector.

“The sentiment is still generally quite similar,” she said.

A 2023 report from the Rathenau Institute found that Dutch citizens were unanimous in their view that “regulation of NGT crops is necessary … to prevent harms to the environment and human health, to give consumers freedom of choice, to guard against the potential of the technology to increase inequalities and to ensure that the technology is directed towards contributing to solutions to societal problems.”

The report noted a split in the finer details of public opinion, however. Some Dutch consumers viewed NGTs as necessary to deal with issues like climate change, while others thought they were likely to cause more problems for agriculture and food.

A 2021 report from the U.S. National Library of Medicine indicates that Europeans who say they’re concerned about GMOs in food and drink decreased to 27 per cent in 2019 from 63 per cent in 2005, which it says will pave the way for new regulations.

However, “consumers have the right to know what they buy and if they don’t like it, they have to have the right not to buy it also,” Schmutzler said.

Her organization’s position is that “the burden of ensuring non-GMO production should not fall on farmers and processors who do not wish to use NGTs,” according to a briefing document from the group.

The European Commission has committed to ensuring co-existence, Schmutzler said.

However, “for ‘coexistence’ to be conceivable … EU legal requirements for NGTs need to include identification and traceability of products obtained through NGTs,” her organization stated.

IFOAM Organics Europe also asks that all EU member states set up coexistence measures, including the right to ban cultivation of NGT crops “where coexistence is not feasible.”

It also calls for a liability regime to set up compensation if crops are contaminated.

The post European organics ponder gene-editing coexistence appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Critics argue these foods could pose risks to human health and the environment. Proponents point to their potential for enhancing yields, reducing food waste and even combating climate change.

Although GMOs and gene-edited foods have been in circulation for almost three decades, breakthroughs are still happening. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have genetic material that has been artificially altered by inserting a piece of foreign DNA. This DNA may be synthetic or sourced from other organisms.

Gene editing involves making precise changes to an organism’s genome without the integration of foreign DNA elements. Using techniques such as CRISPR/Cas, scientists make precise “cuts” in the DNA to create new genetic variation. This introduces only minor modifications, which are indistinguishable from natural mutations.

READ MORE: Gene-edited crops clear CFIA’s regulatory bar

The major criticisms of GMOs are related to overuse of specific herbicides. Concerns generally aren’t related to the actual manipulation of the plants’ DNA.

When it comes to the food we eat, how much do we really know about its DNA? Even among experts with genome-sequencing information, most have a limited list of sequenced “reference” varieties, and these often aren’t the same as the plants we eat.

The fact is, we don’t really understand the genomes of many plants and animals we eat, so there’s no reason to suggest tweaking their gene sequences will make consumption harmful. Moreover, there’s currently no evidence that regulator-approved GMOs or gene-edited foods aren’t safe for human consumption.

One valid concern would be the potential creation of new allergens: proteins within the crop that the body recognizes and creates an immune response to.

But it’s important to remember many foods we eat are already allergenic. Common examples include wheat, peanuts, soy, milk and eggs. Some common foods are even toxic if consumed in large quantities or without appropriate preparation, such as raw kidney beans and raw cashews.

Ironically, researchers are using gene editing to work toward eliminating proteins that cause allergies and intolerances. Gluten-free wheat is one example.

Due to inconsistent rules about labelling GMOs and gene-edited foods around the world, many consumers may not realize they’re already eating them.

The most widely used enzyme in cheese making, rennet, is produced from a GMO bacterium. GMO microbial rennet produces a specific enzyme called chymosin, which helps coagulate milk and form curds. Historically, chymosin was extracted from young cow stomachs, but in the 1990s, scientists managed to genetically engineer a bacterium to synthesize it.

GMOs and gene-edited cereal and oilseed products are also widely used in livestock feeds. There is ongoing research to improve feed through enhanced nutrition and produce crops to decrease methane emissions from cattle.

When it comes to modifying animals themselves, ethical considerations must be balanced alongside potential benefits.

In Australia, about 70 per cent of cattle are genetically polled. This improves meat quality through less injury to meat, and is considered better for animal welfare. In the U.S., fast-growing genetically modified salmon has been approved.

In a horticultural context, the genetically modified rainbow papaya stands out. It was developed in the late 1990s in response to a ringspot virus outbreak that nearly wiped out the global papaya industry. Researchers created the virus-resistant “transgenic” papaya, which now makes up the majority of papayas consumed worldwide.

Research is also being done to create non-browning mushrooms, apples and potatoes. A simple gene edit can help inhibit the browning oxidation reaction, leading to a longer shelf-life and less food waste.

So why don’t Australians see non-browning mushrooms at their local supermarkets? In Australia, the government has approved four GMO crops for cultivation. Many more are imported for food ingredients and stock feed.

Gene-edited foods, however, can be cultivated without any regulatory restrictions or labelling in Australia, and in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently decided that gene-edited foods would face the same regulatory control as conventionally bred crops.

China, the U.S., Japan and the U.K. have also adopted policies friendly to gene-editing.

On the other hand, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority has maintained regulatory restrictions on both gene-edited foods and GMOs. Divergent definitions have led the bi-national agency, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), to regulate gene-edited foods and feeds as GMOs.

The lack of alignment has confused Australian producers and consumers alike. FSANZ has said it will continue to monitor developments in gene-editing technology and will consider reviewing its approach.

Both GMOs and gene-edited foods offer great promise. There are valid concerns, including unintended ecological consequences or growing corporate control over food. But these can be addressed through responsible research and regulatory frameworks.

Ultimately, the development of future foods must be guided by a commitment to sustainability, social justice and scientific rigour.

Karen Massel is a research fellow with the Centre for Crop Science at the University of Queensland. This opinion first appeared in The Conversation.

The post Comment: GMO and GE could be powerful solutions, if we let them be appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The soybean, developed by privately owned Shandong Shunfeng Biotechnology Co., has two modified genes, significantly raising the level of oleic acid, a healthy fat, in the plant.

The safety certificate has been approved for five years from April 21, according to a document published in late April by the ministry of agriculture and rural affairs.

Unlike genetic modification, which introduces foreign genes into a plant, gene editing alters existing genes.

The technology is considered less risky than GMOs and is more lightly regulated in some countries, including China, which published rules on gene-editing last year.

“The approval of the safety certificate is a shot in the arm for the Shunfeng team,” said the firm in a May 4 statement to Reuters.

Shunfeng claims to be the first company in China seeking to commercialize gene-edited crops.

It is researching around 20 other projects, including higher-yield rice, wheat and corn, herbicide-resistant rice and soybeans and vitamin C-rich lettuce, said a company representative.

Several additional steps are needed before China’s farmers can plant the soybean, including approvals of seed varieties with the tweaked genes.

The approval comes as trade tensions, erratic weather and war in major grain exporter Ukraine have increased concerns in Beijing over feeding the country’s 1.4 billion people.

A growing middle class is also facing a surge in diet-related disease.

China is promoting GMO crops too and is starting large-scale trials of GM corn this year. Getting gene-edited crops onto the market is expected to be faster, however, given fewer steps in the regulatory process.

United States-based company Calyxt also developed a high-oleic soybean, the first gene-edited food to be approved in the U.S. in 2019. Japan has also approved gene-edited foods.

The news comes as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency revealed its new guidance on gene-edited seeds. On May 3, the agency said gene-edited seed would face the same regulations as conventionally bred seed.

The post China approves safety of first gene-edited crop appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Farmers have for decades planted GM corn, which protects against insects and herbicides, with seeds sold by companies such as Bayer, Corteva and ChemChina’s Syngenta.

But as believers in a free market, some say the U.S. should agree to sell Mexico non-GM corn, rather than deepen a trade dispute over the proposal, and note they could earn a premium for growing more conventional corn.

“I’m all for free and fair trade,” said Fred Huddlestun, who grows GM corn and soybeans at Yale, Illinois. “When they get to the point they’re pushing somebody to buy something they don’t want, then I have concerns about that.”

Mexico is the largest buyer of U.S. corn and the proposed restrictions threaten to disrupt some of the nearly $5 billion of corn the U.S. ships to Mexico annually, or 95 per cent of Mexico’s total corn imports (all figures US$).

Mexico said in February it would ban GM corn for consumption by people, backpedaling from previous plans that clouded the future of imports for livestock feed, the destination of the vast majority of its imported corn.

Supporters of the policy say GM corn can contaminate Mexico’s age-old native varieties and have questioned its impact on human health.

The Biden administration says restrictions would violate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and last month requested trade consultations with Mexico in the first formal step toward a request for a dispute settlement panel under the pact. U.S. officials met with counterparts in Mexico last week.

Mexico’s proposed restriction on corn for human consumption is expected to affect white corn imports, used primarily for tortillas, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on March 30 that he expects the administration will “ultimately compel” Mexico to reverse its policy. The restrictions are not supported by science and fail to adhere to a rules-based trading relationship, he has said.

Industry groups including the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), which represents biotech companies, and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) have lobbied U.S. officials to oppose Mexico’s proposals.

Mexico is drawing a “safety distinction” between corn used for food and animal feed without material scientific justification, the groups told Biden in a letter praising Washington’s step toward a settlement panel.

On Tuesday, BIO said the U.S. should launch the formal dispute process “without delay” if consultations do not produce a science-based outcome.

But some U.S. farmers say the U.S. should back off.

NCGA has appeared intent on “ramming potential unwanted grain down our trade partners (sic) throats,” Matt Swanson, a farmer who grows non-GM corn, wrote on Twitter.

Companies like Bayer have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing GM crops and defending the safety of GM foods. Four companies sell more than 75 per cent of corn and soybean seeds, according to data cited by USDA.

‘Worth my while’

U.S. farmers have long had a conflicted relationship with seed companies. Growers benefit from yield-improving and pest-killing agricultural technology, but some are unhappy with consolidation in the sector and the amount of sway the companies have over U.S. agriculture.

“It seems to me like the secretary and this administration are not standing up for all farmers,” said Greg Gunthorp, an Indiana pork and poultry farmer who feeds non-GM corn to livestock to produce premium meat products. “What they’re really standing up for is the big companies.”

Bayer said it works with BIO, NCGA and other groups to promote the need for a science-based regulatory system. NCGA said GM corn is safe and it will fight all illegal trade barriers for farmers.

Some sector experts have warned Mexico’s restrictions, if implemented, could prompt other countries to seek bans.

Though there is no hard data on U.S. farmers’ opinions, Reuters spoke to about 10 growers and grain traders who said the U.S. should not require Mexico to continue importing GM corn.

Other growers worry about the extra work required to grow non-GM crops, instead of GM grain, and the potential for a new government in Mexico to eventually change the policy again. But many would consider growing more non-GM corn, if the price were right.

“You need to make it worth my while,” said Illinois farmer Dave Kestel, who grows GM corn and sells seed for Corteva. “Twenty per cent premium would probably be the minimum.”

— Reporting for Reuters by Tom Polansek; additional reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington and Cassandra Garrison in Manhattan, Illinois.

The post After growing GM corn for decades, some U.S. farmers open to Mexican restrictions appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Biotech varieties of corn, canola and soy, used for animal feed, biofuels and cooking oil, were introduced in 1996 and soon came to dominate plantings.

But genetically modified wheat has never been grown for commercial purposes due to consumer fears that allergens or toxicities could emerge in a staple used worldwide for bread, pasta and pastries.

Now, growing concerns about a possible global food crisis being triggered by climate change and war in Ukraine may be chipping away at opposition.

Argentine biotech company Bioceres is shaking up the status quo by developing wheat genetically modified to better tolerate drought, positioning itself ahead of larger global companies that are still steering clear.

Brazil has become the second country in the world, after Argentina, to approve the cultivation of genetically modified wheat, after a request from a Bioceres partner.

Because wheat is traded in a global marketplace, the threat of trade disruptions due to GM fears can be significant, as U.S. and Canadian wheat growers know well.

Two decades ago, Monsanto was working to commercialize wheat bred to withstand treatments of its weedkiller Roundup, but the company halted that effort in 2004. International buyers had threatened to boycott U.S. wheat if the product was introduced to the marketplace. Monsanto was purchased by Bayer AG in 2018.

Monsanto’s experimental wheat was supposed to have been destroyed or stored securely. However, small patches of Roundup-resistant wheat plants emerged years later in Alberta, Oregon, Montana and Washington.

The findings prompted importers, including Japan and South Korea, to suspend imports of North American wheat until they could confirm that no unapproved strains had entered commercial channels.

Attitudes toward genetically modified crops vary around the world. China, a top world buyer of soy and corn, allows GM crops in imported feed grains but only recently began to approve GM varieties for cultivation.

Germany, home to seed giants Bayer and BASF, imports GM soy. But domestic opposition to biotech crops is strong enough that these companies conduct their crop research abroad.

Australia grows and exports GM cotton and canola, and the country in May approved Bioceres’ biotech wheat for use in foods.

Mexico, among the largest buyers of U.S. corn, has said it will halt GM corn imports for human consumption, but walked back a deadline to ban the corn for animal feed.

In the United States, some producers and wheat industry leaders have expressed interest in using biotechnology to boost wheat’s profitability and appeal to farmers.

In the quarter-century since genetically modified corn and soybeans were introduced, overall U.S. plantings of those crops expanded by 13 per cent and 37 per cent, respectively, while U.S. wheat plantings fell by 37 per cent, hitting the lowest in more than 100 years in 2020, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

The majority of biotech corn and soybean crops are modified for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, traits that some wheat growers would like to access. Bioceres’ drought-tolerant wheat, known as HB4, adds another element to the mix.

Recent disruptions to global wheat supplies have brought a new degree of urgency to the debate over biotech wheat.

The post Biotech crops widely used, consumers still wary of GM wheat appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Canada requested the talks on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg, a day after the U.S. requested formal trade consultations over its objections to Mexico’s plans to limit imports of GM corn and other agricultural biotechnology products.

“Canada will always work with the U.S. and Mexico to strengthen our trade relationship and grow a clean, green agriculture sector,” a spokesperson for Canada’s Trade Minister Mary Ng said in a statement.

The Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA) “has the ability to hold technical consultations to better understand how our policies are to be implemented under this agreement,” the spokesperson said, without explicitly confirming the report.

Mexico plans to regulate GM corn for human consumption, which U.S. officials say puts some US$5 billion of U.S. corn exports to Mexico at risk and could stifle biotechnology innovation.

Canada, however, is not a major corn exporter and Ottawa is concerned overall about Mexico putting arbitrary prohibitions on agriculture produced using biotechnology, Bloomberg reported.

It is also concerned about Mexico’s lack of respect for the CUSMA trade pact, according to the report.

A spokeswoman for Mexico’s economy ministry did not respond to a request for comment on the report.

Mexico says GM seeds can contaminate the country’s age-old native varieties and has questioned their impact on human health. U.S. officials have criticized Mexico’s plans as not being science-based and warn that any restriction of genetically modified corn could morph into an all-out trade dispute under CUSMA.

— Reporting for Reuters by Ismail Shakil in Ottawa and Cassandra Garrison in Chicago.

The post Canada reported seeking formal talks with Mexico on GMO rule appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office announced the request for technical talks after months of informal discussions with Mexican officials over their plans to ban GMO corn for human consumption failed to satisfy U.S. trade officials.

The consultations are the first formal step toward a U.S. request for a dispute settlement panel under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA) that could ultimately lead to retaliatory U.S. tariffs if no resolution is reached.

The dispute could further strain U.S.-Mexico relations. U.S. officials say it puts some $5 billion of U.S. corn exports to Mexico at risk and could stifle biotechnology innovation at a time of high food inflation as increasingly severe weather threatens crop production (all figures US$).

“Mexico’s policies threaten to disrupt billions of dollars in agricultural trade and they will stifle the innovation that is necessary to tackle the climate crisis and food security challenges if left unaddressed,” U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a statement.

“We hope these consultations will be productive as we continue to work with Mexico to address these issues.”

Mexico’s economy ministry said in a statement that it viewed the U.S. request as seeking a solution in a “co-operative way,” and would use the consultations to show that its policies have caused no trade harm.

The Mexican government has previously described Washington’s disagreement with its policies as politically motivated.

The U.S. has previously threatened to take the issue to a trade dispute panel under the trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada over the plan, which would ban genetically modified corn for human consumption.

The U.S. and Mexico have also been in talks since July to resolve a separate dispute over Mexico’s state-driven energy policies, which USTR says discriminate against U.S. companies.

‘Not grounded in science’

Washington will do whatever is necessary to ensure U.S. farmers and exporters have “full and fair access” to the Mexican market, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.

“We remain firm in our view that Mexico’s current biotechnology trajectory is not grounded in science, which is the foundation of (CUSMA).”

The consultations are requested under CUSMA’s chapter on food safety, which requires a science-based approach to national regulations.

USTR officials declined to speculate on potential retaliatory measures that could be taken under CUSMA enforcement rules if the dispute remains unresolved, saying they were focused on the consultations leading to a satisfactory outcome for both countries.

“The core resolution that we’re seeking really is transparent and predictable access to the Mexican market — to be able to continue to export the types of products that we have exported for decades, and that Mexico recognizes the safety of these product,” one of the USTR officials told reporters.

Mexico’s limits on genetically modified corn threatens “serious harm to U.S. farmers and Mexican livestock producers,” the official added.

USTR said the United States exported $28 billion in agricultural goods to Mexico in 2022, with about $43 billion in ag imports from Mexico.

Corn for food use comprises about 21 per cent of Mexican corn imports from the United States including both white and yellow corn, a representative from the National Corn Growers Association said, citing U.S. Grains Council data.

The corn growers’ lobby group called on the USTR to expedite the process under CUSMA.

“Mexico’s position on biotech corn is already creating uncertainty, so we need U.S officials to move swiftly and do everything it takes to eliminate this trade barrier in the very near future,” said NCGA president Tom Haag.

USTR’s move won praise from a number of U.S. lawmakers who have been clamoring for the Biden administration to take a harder stand on the issue.

“I’m grateful USTR has chosen to take a stand for American trade and begin the dispute process with Mexico over its ridiculous GMO corn ban,” Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, himself an Iowa farmer, said in a statement.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Lawder and Rami Ayyub in Washington and Tom Polansek and Cassandra Garrison in Chicago; additional reporting by Adriana Barrera and Raul Cortes in Mexico City; writing by David Lawder.

The post U.S. demands formal trade talks with Mexico over GMO corn dispute appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The move, approved in a government decree, eliminates January 2024 as the date for the country to forbid GM corn for animal feed and industrial use, a statement by the economy ministry said.

Amid a brewing dispute over the possible disruption of billions of dollars worth of corn trade, U.S. officials and farmers had called for clarity on the ban from Mexico. The latter buys about 17 million tonnes of mostly GM yellow corn from the U.S. annually, most of which is used for animal feed.

Mexico said it still plans to revoke and refrain from granting new authorizations for GM corn for human consumption, which the decree defined as flour, dough or tortilla made from the grain. The ban does not apply to GM corn used in the industrial manufacturing of products like cosmetics, textiles and paper, the decree said.

About 18-20 per cent of the corn Mexico imports from the U.S. is white corn, used in food products like tortillas, according to sector experts.

Under the decree, the new measures were to take effect Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the economy ministry did not immediately respond to a question about whether Mexico would begin revoking authorizations of GM corn for human consumption on Tuesday.

The decree also said Mexico will revoke authorizations and permits to import, produce, distribute and use the herbicide glyphosate, a plan it has had since late 2020. A transition period would be in effect until March 31, 2024.

Health authority COFEPRIS will be responsible for authorizations of GM corn to be used as animal feed or in industrial manufacturing processes, subject to supply availability. It will also conduct scientific studies with counterparts from other countries to investigate the health impacts of consuming GM corn, Mexico’s decree added.

Mexico and the U.S. have been at loggerheads over an original decree issued by Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in 2020 that sought to phase out imports of GM corn and glyphosate by January 2024.

U.S. officials have threatened to take action under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) over the potential disruption of the corn trade.

The new U.S. agriculture trade chief last week told Reuters that he had given Mexico until Feb. 14 to respond to a request to explain the science behind Mexico’s planned bans.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Tuesday the U.S. is “disappointed” in Monday’s announcement from Mexico. “The U.S. believes in and adheres to a science-based, rules-based trading system and remains committed to preventing disruptions to bilateral agricultural trade and economic harm to U.S. and Mexican producers.”

The National Corn Growers Association, a U.S. industry group, also expressed concern over Monday’s decree.

“Singling out corn — our No. 1 ag export to Mexico — and hastening an import ban on numerous food-grade uses makes (CUSMA) a dead letter unless it’s enforced,” said the group’s president, Tom Haag.

— Reporting for Reuters by Cassandra Garrison and Adriana Barrera in Mexico City, Leah Douglas and David Lawder in Washington and Julie Ingwersen in Chicago; writing by Valentine Hilaire.

The post Mexico opens door for GM corn in feed, industrial uses appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The world’s top soybean buyer is trying to lower its heavy reliance on imports of the oilseed as the pandemic, growing trade tensions and increasing climate disasters raise concerns about feeding its 1.4 billion people.

In its annual rural policy blueprint, known as the “No. 1 document,” the State Council, China’s cabinet, reiterated a recently stated goal to boost grain production capacity by 50 million tonnes, from current production of more than 650 million tonnes.

It will seek to raise corn yields, further support wheat farmers and “vigorously” promote rapeseed production, as well as lesser known oilseed crops such as camelina, state news agency Xinhua reported.

It will also speed up the commercialization of biotech corn and soybeans, according to the document.

No time frame was provided for the launch of GMO corn and soybeans, but many in the market expect a launch this year.

The document said China will fully implement a campaign to reduce soymeal rations in feed, another move to lower its reliance on soybean imports.

However, it acknowledged the role played by trade, and said it will “implement the diversification strategy of agricultural product imports thoroughly.”

The document also outlined plans to protect soil and conserve water, while strengthening controls on the use of arable land.

It also called for further development of indoor farms, with plans to explore building such facilities in the Gobi and other deserts.

— Dominique Patton is Reuters’ chief commodities correspondent in Beijing.

The post China to plant more soy, speed up GMOs to ensure food supply appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.