A top price of 2,700gns was achieved and 12 lots sold for 2,000gns or more when the Goostrey herd of Holsteins and Aryshires was dispersed for Griffiths Farming, Cheshire.EU stance on GM could decimate UK livestock production
EUROPE’S stance on GM crops could lead to a 300 per cent spike in feed costs and decimate Britain’s pig and poultry sectors, a Defra report has warned.
UK livestock farmers are almost wholly dependent on soya imports from Brazil and Argentina but because these countries can authorise the cultivation of new GM varieties before they are cleared for import into the EU, Defra said imports could dry up completely.
Combined with the EU’s ‘zero tolerance’ stance where any import with a ‘trace’ of an unauthorised GM product cannot enter into Europe, traders are increasingly reluctant to import any commodity into the EU – GM or non-GM.
In a ‘worst case’ scenario, Defra said Europe’s GM stance could lead to no soya imports from Argentina or Brazil which would have a ‘very significant’ impact on UK farmers.
If soya imports dried up Defra said: “There would be a major increase in feed costs (300 per cent plus), a significant reduction in pig (24-29 per cent) and poultry (10-68 per cent) production, a reduction in UK meat exports, increase in meat imports, and a marked increase in meat prices.”
Even in a ‘medium impact’ scenario, Defra predicted an increase in feed costs of up to 23 per cent, a reduction in pig and poultry production of up to 7 per cent and up to 4 per cent increase in meat prices.
These shocking figures are revealed in a report produced by Defra and the Food Standards Agency into the potential impacts on the livestock sector arising from global GM trends and the EU’s GM approval system.
There is particular concern for the non-GM soya supply chain. The UK poultry sector and the organic livestock sector are wholly reliant on non-GM soya as their main source of protein but the Defra report asserts the ‘availability of non-GM soya is also likely to be an issue for the food industry within the next 1-2 years’.
According to the Grain and Animal Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) the premium for non-GM feed was £50-60 per tonne above GM feed in February 2008 and as it becomes more difficult to import non-GM feed, that figure is set to rise.
According to the Defra report the UK is in a fragile position as there would be ‘limited scope’ to obtain alternative supplies of soya from other countries. Research from the feed industry has shown that UK protein production could only replace 10-20 per cent of the protein supplied by imported soya.
The European Commission has responded to say it would find a ‘technical solution’ to allow for a more pragmatic interpretation of the EU’s zero threshold for non-approved GM material.
However, there are a number of new GM soya varieties due to be commercialised over the next few years which will increase the pressure on Europe’s approvals process.
Share
Readers' comments (2)
Diss1t | 18 August 2009 10:13 pm
How can gm soya be banned from use in the eu but imports of meat and dairy products produced using gm soya be allowed? The logic beggars belief.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19 August 2009 11:14 am
This is what happens to farmers who grow GM crops
1.Monsanto, DuPont square off in crop seed turf war
2.Federal officials stress the 'anti' in antitrust
EXTRACT: "We're hearing lots of complaints from farmers about huge price
increases and that non-GMO seed availability no longer exists." (item 1)
An Indiana seed dealer grew so disturbed by the prices Monsanto charged to
farmers growing in different parts of his service area that he simply stopped
selling the company's seed.
The stories are all the same - as competition declines... farmers are finding
their prices decline and their costs increase. (item 2)
---
---
1.MONSANTO-DUPONT/DISPUTE (BUSINESS FEATURE)
Monsanto, DuPont square off in crop seed turf war
By Carey Gillam
Reuters News, August 18 2009
http://www.forexyard.com/en/reuters_inner.tpl?action=2009-08-18T203448Z_01_N18437534_RTRIDST_0_MONSANTO-DUPONT-DISPUTE-BUSINESS-FEATURE
* DuPont claims Monsanto holds "illegal monopoly"
* Monsanto CEO seeks probe by DuPont independent directors
* Justice Dept., USDA
to examine antitrust concerns
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - It's getting dirty down on the farm.
As U.S. farmers prepare to harvest billions of bushels of corn and soybeans --
key ingredients in food, livestock feed and transportation fuel around the world
-- seed technology titan Monsanto Co and its chief rival DuPont are ramping up
their rivalry to new heights.
DuPont is accusing Monsanto of illegal anti-competitive practices, while
Monsanto counters that DuPont is engaging in a covert smear campaign that
borders on fraud.
Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant this week sent a letter, a copy of which was obtained by
Reuters, to DuPont chairman Charles Holliday accusing the company of a "serious
breach of business ethics" and requesting that a special committee of DuPont's
independent directors investigate what Grant called an "attack" on Monsanto's
seed business.
Monsanto officials claim DuPont has supported forged documents and secretly
funded Monsanto critics.
"This is just the tip of the iceberg of dirty tricks. I have never seen
corporate conduct of this nature," said Monsanto lawyer Scott Partridge.
DuPont counters that it is simply trying to expose what it calls Monsanto's
"illegal monopoly" and the harm it says Monsanto is doing to farmers and others
up and down the food chain.
"This is not just a DuPont problem. This is a competition problem. They've
gained illegal monopoly power," said DuPont attorney Don Flexner.
The stakes have now risen as both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Justice Department said this month they will launch an examination of
competition and antitrust concerns in the seed industry.
"We understand that there are concerns regarding the levels of concentration in
the seed industry, particularly for corn and soybeans," said Philip Weiser,
deputy assistant attorney general in the antitrust division at the U.S.
Department of Justice.
SOURED RELATIONS
Both companies have strong positions in the U.S. seed industry and have been
racing each other and other competitors to develop higher-yielding crops through
genetic modifications and other means.
This spring, the competition spilled into the courts as Monsanto and DuPont sued
each other over a soured licensing arrangement.
Monsanto claimed DuPont was using its Roundup Ready herbicide-tolerant trait
outside the scope of the agreement. DuPont countersued, seeking relief under
antitrust laws to end what it calls "Monsanto's multifaceted, anti-competitive
scheme to unlawfully restrict competition."
Monsanto claims, and DuPont does not dispute, that DuPont has been aligning
with, and in some cases funding, groups critical of Monsanto.
Monsanto in turn has launched an effort to discredit DuPont, working with a
Washington law firm to circulate documents that lay out a series of scathing
accusations. The documents accuse DuPont of misleading investors about certain
product capabi
lities, as well as involvement in what Monsanto has said were
several falsified letters to lawmakers and others that criticize Monsanto.
Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles said the company wants to protect itself against
DuPont's "smear campaigns" designed to "compete through deceit."
DuPont spokesman Anthony Farina said Monsanto is engaging in a "campaign of
diversion" and that DuPont was cooperating with a group of attorneys general
from states including Iowa, the top U.S. corn grower, investigating Monsanto's
business practices.
CRYING FOUL
The biotech corporate battle comes at a time when farmers, agricultural
academics and consumer groups are growing increasingly concerned about climbing
seed prices and industry concentration.
"We're hearing lots of complaints from farmers about huge price increases and
that non-GMO (genetically modified) seed availability no longer exists," said
Bill Wenzel, national director of the Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic
Engineering, which has been studying the sharp price increases in soy and corn
seed in recent years.
A decade ago, DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred seed unit, based in Johnston, Iowa,
controlled more than 40 percent of the lucrative U.S. corn seed market. But that
had fallen to about 30 percent in 2008, according to DuPont, which gets about a
quarter of its $30 billion in revenues from its agricultural and nutrition unit.
Monsanto's rapid rise in power over the last decade has come through20a series of
seed company acquisitions, broad licensing deals and tightly protected patents
for its proprietary seed technology.
St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto pegs its market share for its branded corn
seed at about 36 percent, and says branded soy seed enjoys a 29 percent share
and cotton a 41 percent share in the United States.
But DuPont and other critics say that, through licensing deals with about 200
other companies, Monsanto's genetic traits are spread through nearly all of the
U.S. corn, soy and cotton acres planted each year.
They say Monsanto's power translates into steep price increases for farmers and
increasingly fewer seed choices.
"That level of concentration is scary," said Iowa State University agricultural
economist Neil Harl. "The Department of Justice antitrust division is right on
target in my view."
Monsanto recently announced, for instance, that its new Roundup Ready 2 Yield
soybeans will cost farmers about $74 an acre in 2010 on average, while the
current version of its Roundup Ready soybeans cost $52 an acre.
Monsanto said the price hikes are valid because farmers receive added value with
technological improvements to the seeds, higher yields and greater efficiencies.
It also argues there is no shortage of seed varieties.
Monsanto's prowess in the seed industry has made it a darling of Wall Street.
Last year the company posted record net sales of $11.4 billion for fiscal 2008,
a=2
036 percent jump from fiscal 2007.
Monsanto officials say they welcome the added antitrust scrutiny.
"This is a very competitive industry," said Partridge. "We welcome the
opportunity to participate and to be involved in these discussions so people can
learn more about Monsanto and how we compete." (Reporting by Carey Gillam;
editing by Jim Marshall)
---
---
2.Federal officials stress the 'anti' in antitrust
Daily Yonder, North Platte Bulletin, 17 August 2009
http://www.northplattebulletin.com/index.asp?show=news&action=readStory&storyID=17088&pageID=29
The room was filled. There were Nebraska hog raisers, corn farmers from
Missouri, Colorado feed lot owners and ranchers from Wyoming. They were
Republicans and Democrats, pro-life and pro-choice, church-goers and agnostics.
The one thing they had in common is a belief that the markets for food and
agriculture are dominated by a few big companies and, as a result, the prices
paid to farmers and charged to consumers aren't fair.
The members of the Organization for Competitive Markets have been denouncing big
business for years. OCM has issued press releases and joined lawsuits. Their
annual meetings have been small, however, and the organization's influence has
been weak. OCM has had few successes convincing a largely uninterested federal
government aggressively to enforce antitrust laws20and the rules governing market
concentration in the livestock business.
Those times may be changing.
"This is a narrow moment in history when a difference can be made," Omaha
attorney David Domina said near the end of OCM's annual meeting this year in St.
Louis. This moment arrived with last November's election.
The Department of Justice under President George Bush was slow to prosecute
under long-standing antitrust laws. The Obama Administration, however, has
promised stricter interpretation of those statutes. And the Democrats have shown
a particular interest in competition (or the lack of it) in agriculture markets.
The Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture announced last week
that they will hold "workshops" to "openly discuss legal and economic issues
associated with competition in the agriculture industry."
Two top federal officials charged with enforcing antitrust and competition laws
in the agriculture and livestock sectors came to speak to the farmers and
ranchers at the OCM meeting.
The workshops will begin in January. These will be evidence gathering sessions
for a government investigating ways that competition is currently restricted,
from the sale of seed to the ownership and control over grocery-store shelves.
Both DOJ and USDA officials said they are eager to receive comments on
agriculture markets across the country, including anonymous statements.
To find more information on these workshops and see20where to send your comments,
look here.
The Obama Administration appears to be looking at four areas in the agriculture
markets:
•
Dairy - Last week, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote to the Department of
Justice asking that it investigate major milk buyers to see if they violate
antitrust laws.
•
Seeds - That is, Monsanto. Monsanto now controls almost all the genetically
modified soy, cotton and corn seed. Philip Weiser, the new Deputy Assistant
Attorney General who spoke at the OCM conference, said the Justice Department
would be taking a hard look at market concentration in the seed industry.
"For many farmers and consumer advocates, we understand that there are concerns
regarding the levels of concentration in the seed industry -- particularly for
corn and soybeans," Weiser said.
That is an understatement. Farmers across the Midwest have been meeting to
protest Monsanto's control of the seed market. OCM attorney David Balto reminded
Weiser that Democrats in the Clinton Administration filed an antitrust action
against Microsoft, the software maker.
"Back then, you started off suing Microsoft," Balto said. "That's a nice letter
to begin with."
Surely it wasn't lost on St. Louis-based Monsanto that Weiser came to its
hometown to give his first public speech after joining the Obama Administration
- and that his speech was in part about the seed business.
0A
•
Livestock - Dudley Butler, administrator for USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers &
Stockyards Administration, told the OCM meeting that he planned to "get out in
the countryside. We know we have an imbalance of power in some of the industries
now."
Livestock raisers have been fighting consolidation among packing firms. Weiser
said specifically that the Department of Justice was "interested in learning
whether the controls of the (Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921) are relevant to
the way businesses are run today and whether the law is being implemented
effectively to promote competition."
Butler gave a populist-tinged speech that sat well with the latter-day populists
in the crowd. Asking for comments from farm producers who are often afraid to
cross their buyers and suppliers, Butler said, "I understand the concept of
retaliation."
Food Costs - The DOJ says it will investigate whether the vertical integration
of the food business - where the same company can control a product from seed
genetics to the grocery shelves - violates antitrust rules.
"We recognize this is a very important sector," Weiser said of the department's
interest in agriculture. He said antitrust chief Christine Varney "has put a
huge emphasis on" the ag sector and has set no preconditions on the inquiry.
"We can say we're really committed to learning and hearing from as many people
as we can," Weiser said, adding, "
I can't go much deeper."
If the OCM conference was any indication, the USDA and DOJ are likely to get an
earful when they begin their workshops. Jim Foster, a Missouri hog raiser for
more than five decades, told the conference that the big meat packers had gained
control of so many animals that they could do without the independent producers.
"They own enough hogs that they don't need us," Foster said.
An Indiana seed dealer grew so disturbed by the prices Monsanto charged to
farmers growing in different parts of his service area that he simply stopped
selling the company's seed.
The stories are all the same - as competition declines, farmers and ranchers
have fewer choices about where to sell their crops or cattle or where to buy
their seed. As competition declines, farmers are finding their prices decline
and their costs increase.
The farmers and ranchers at the OCM meeting represent an older style of politics
and economics. (Long before Monsanto developed into a seed-selling giant, George
Washington said, "It is miserable for a farmer to be obliged to buy his
seed....")
While some economists now argue that monopolies may be a product of efficient
markets, David Domina reminded the ranchers and farmers at the OCM conference
that having just a few corporations dominate markets is probably not good for
the country.
"You can't combine a field using a machine with just three moving parts," the
Omah
a attorney said. "You need thousands."
The farmers and ranchers who met in St. Louis are anxious to see if the federal
government and courts agree.
................................................................
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment