Paul
Helliker had a job for Dow AgroSciences. As director of the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation, Helliker had allowed some growers to ignore
the restrictions for a pesticide called 1,3-Dichloropropene, which the state
believed caused cancer. The loophole was supposed to be temporary. Helliker
gave Dow, the company that manufactures 1,3-D, and growers two years to come up
with a plan to follow his department’s rules or to create new ones. It took Dow
less than a year to hand in its proposal. The company’s plan didn’t close the
loophole, however. It greatly expanded it….With that simple memo in 2002,
Helliker dismantled the strict oversight designed seven years earlier to
protect Californians from cancer, opening the door to 12 years of nearly
unfettered 1,3-D access as its use spread to populated areas near schools,
homes and businesses.
Growing
organic food industry rips California's pest-management program as threat to
business [Associated Press]
With
organic food growers reporting double-digit growth in U.S. sales each year,
producers are challenging a proposed California pest-management program they
say enshrines a pesticide-heavy approach for decades to come, including
compulsory spraying of organic crops at the state's discretion. Chief among the
complaints of organic growers: The California Department of Food and
Agriculture's pest-management plan says compulsory state pesticide spraying of
organic crops would do no economic harm to organic producers, on the grounds
that the growers could sell sprayed crops as non-organic instead….The state's
more than 500-page document lays out its planned responses to the next wave of
fruit flies, weevils, beetles, fungus or blight that threatens crops. Many
groups challenging the plan complained that it seems to authorize state
agriculture officials to launch pesticide treatments without first carrying out
the currently standard separate environmental-impact review.
Opponents
of genetically modified crops alarmed at state law (w/video) [Santa Rosa Press
Democrat]
Opponents
of genetically modified organisms are sounding the alarm statewide over a new
California law they contend could derail local efforts to regulate or ban not
just GMOs, but all plants, seeds or crops grown in the state….Whether the
changes actually accomplish what critics fear — granting the secretary of the
California Department of Food and Agriculture authority over all ordinances
enacted by local jurisdictions pertaining to seeds and crops grown in the state
— is now the focus of intense review, including by county and state lawyers.
The ongoing controversy centers on a single paragraph inserted late into an
Assembly bill to reportedly deal with a narrow conflict — over a proposed
invasive plant policy in the city of Encinitas, in San Diego County. But the
final legislation, AB 2470, has had a much wider fallout, leading GMO opponents
statewide to wonder how the bill managed to fly so far off the radar prior to
Gov. Jerry Brown signing it Aug. 25. Critics accuse the bill’s author,
Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, of quietly inserting the controversial
language last summer at the behest of agricultural interests.
U.S.D.A.
approves modified potato. Next up: French fry fans. [New York Times]
A
potato genetically engineered to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful
ingredient in French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial
planting, the Department of Agriculture announced on Friday. The potato’s DNA
has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide, which is
suspected of causing cancer in people, is produced when the potato is
fried….The potato is one of a new wave of genetically modified crops that aim
to provide benefits to consumers, not just to farmers as the widely grown biotech
crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn do….The question now is whether
the potatoes — which come in the Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet and Atlantic
varieties — will be adopted by food companies and restaurant chains. At least
one group opposed to such crops has already pressed McDonald’s to reject them.
Editorial: Watch next steps
closely on state's water bond [Chico Enterprise-Record]
The
headline on Thursday's front page spoke volumes: "Californians approve
$7.5 billion water bond; now what?" Now what indeed. One reason we were
one of the few newspapers in the state to recommend rejection of Proposition 1
is because of the "now what."…The California Water Commission, a
nine-member board appointed by the governor, will decide whether that money is
used for Sites Reservoir in Maxwell, Temperance Flat in the San Joaquin Valley
foothills ... or underground storage in the Mojave Desert….We asked Sen. Jim
Nielsen, who led the effort to get more money set aside in the bond for dams,
whether he trusted the California Water Commission to do what the Legislature
intends….Nielsen said he will watch this issue closely and apply pressure. The
Northern California Water Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation
and all voters need to do the same. So will we.
Editorial: Farmland vs. solar:
The new "battleground" [Imperial Valley Press]
When
it comes to farmland vs. solar development, the agricultural community has
every right to be concerned about the immediate effect to its pocketbook and
its future. On the latter, that is where the rest of us should be as
well….Farming and solar development must coexist, but it has to be done to
maintain the livelihood and prosperity of both industries. When the draft
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, which is a federal and state
renewable energy planning document, identifies vast areas of irrigated Imperial
County farmland as a “Development Focus Area,” what is that signaling for the
future of the ag economy? We don’t pretend to know. The county is updating its
land-use ordinances to restrict solar development to marginal land. We hope it
balances solar development with ag’s rightful place in the Valley.
Ag
Today is distributed by the CFBF Communications/News Division to county Farm
Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for information purposes; stories may
not be republished without permission. Some story links may require site
registration. To be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
message and please provide your name and e-mail address. For more
information about Ag Today, contact 916-561-5550 or news@cfbf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment