By: Rujun Shen and Gavin Maguire

ChemChina's purchase of Syngenta (SYNN.VX) could remove some of the suspicion around genetically modified crops and ultimately lead to more rapid user acceptance of biotechnology in food production in China, Syngenta's Chief Operating Officer Davor Pisk told Reuters.

The $43 billion all-cash deal unveiled last week is the largest foreign acquisition ever by a Chinese firm, and marks a massive upgrade to China's crop production potential.

The deal would also give Swiss-based Syngenta unrivalled access to China's massive, yet fragmented and underdeveloped, crop market. China is the world's largest grain producer, and is a major grower of vegetables, oilseeds, cotton and sugar. (For other stories on the deal, please see)

The Basel-based COO of Asia-Pacific and North America, who is on a tour through Asia to address customer concerns about the pending takeover, said Syngenta had been limited in its activities in China as a foreign company but could now leverage ChemChina's local knowledge to build its share of the multi-billion dollar agrochemical and seeds market.

Syngenta is already the market leader in the fungicides and insecticides industry within China, with a roughly 6 percent share. 

"Our crop protection market share in China is significantly below our market share in other parts of the World," Pisk said on Friday, adding that the company's average share in Asia is around 12 percent, and nearly 20 percent globally.

CAUTIOUS UPTAKE OF GM

The Syngenta executive noted that while cultivation of GM food crops remains illegal in China, there are indications that the government wants to move toward adopting more use of GM technology, but to do so in a very cautious way, as it recognizes a lot of consumer uncertainty and anxiety about the question of GM foods.

"One of the benefits of ChemChina acquiring Syngenta is to hopefully remove some of the suspicion around modern technologies as they relate to agriculture amongst Chinese consumers," Pisk said, adding that Chinese consumers had been reluctant to accept GM technology as long as it appeared controlled by foreign companies. 

If the technology is owned by a Chinese entity, consumers will have more confidence in its safety, he added. 

"This will ultimately lead to more rapid user acceptance and greater confidence that this can really contribute to a safer and more secure food supply chain in China," he said.

Pisk also argued that the deal fits with China's national ambitions to boost food security.

"This acquisition clearly is consistent with the stated strategic intent of the Chinese government which is looking to modernize its agriculture within China... I think that with ChemChina's move here, this will add capability to China's ability to invest in more sustainable agriculture practices within China."

LONG-TERM FOCUS

ChemChina's purchase still has to be signed off by global regulators, but Pisk says both companies are confident it will be approved due to the limited overlap of commercial interests.

"The overlaps are quite limited as far as we can judge them, so we think from that perspective the regulatory approval risks are low," he said.

Pisk also said that ChemChina is committed to supporting Syngenta's long-term strategies. 

"The biggest benefit for us of course is having a stable shareholder with a commitment to our existing strategy as a standalone entity, committed to support our innovation, committed to support our expansion in emerging markets," Pisk said.

(Reporting by Rujun Shen and Gavin Maguire; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)

Originally Published: Reuters

Feb 12 ChemChina's $43 billion acquisition of Swiss seeds and pesticides group Syngenta AG could help dissipate fears of genetically modified crops in China and lead to their greater acceptance, a senior Syngenta executive said on Friday.

Davor Pisk, chief operating officer overseeing Asia Pacific and North America, said that Chinese ownership of genetically modified technology would make mainland consumers, who have so far been sceptical, more comfortable with the technology.

State-owned ChemChina last week made the bid for Syngenta, in China's biggest overseas takeover, aimed at improving food production in the world's largest agricultural market.

"The indications are that the government wants to move towards adopting more use of GM technology, but to do so in a very cautious way, recognising that there is still a lot of consumer uncertainty and anxiety about the question of GM foods," said Pisk in an interview with Reuters.

"One of the benefits of ChemChina acquiring Syngenta is to hopefully remove some of the suspicion around modern technologies as they relate to agriculture amongst Chinese consumers." (Reporting by Rujun Shen and Gavin Maguire; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)

Originally Published: Reuters

By: Clara Herzberg

From Indiana to Louisiana, a movement among thousands of corn farmers in the United States is trying to hold a Swiss GMO agribusiness giant to account for willful deceit and is making steady progress in court. According to these lawsuits - which may soon become class action - Syngenta, one of the world's largest agrochemical companies, deliberately misled small farmers into thinking that the genetically modified Viptera corn it was pushing on them would be approved for export to China. When China's unpredictable import authorities held off on granting approval and then turned back a shipment that contained Syngenta's genetically modified crop, the glut of excess corn that farmers had on their hands caused prices to crash and resulted in nearly $6 billion in damages.

"I was really upset that this happened," said Susan Taylor, a farm owner. "You work in good faith and you expect producers to act in good faith." According to one lawyer involved in the case, "This is by far the largest agricultural lawsuit we've had in the US." Tens of thousands of farmers spread across 22 states have already filed claims against Syngenta, and that number is expected to keep growing.

While the company claims "other factors" were responsible for the collapse, emails between its own top officials reveal an organized effort to tamp down concerns over just how long the approval would take. In 2012, farmers saw that Chinese approval for Viptera had still not come through and began returning the genetically engineered seeds to Syngenta, knowing they wouldn't be able to export unapproved corn to one of the world's most important markets. This apparently spurred a panic up the Syngenta corporate ladder, with the company's head of global external affairs instructing colleagues in April 2012 to tell farmers that "China's Viptera approval is done and is only waiting for the administrative signatures." CEO Mike Mack took the advice a few days later, saying final approval was only a "matter of a couple of days." As it turns out, a couple of days meant December 2014.

While the deception Syngenta inflicted on US farmers was unacceptable, the way it treats farmers and communities in more vulnerable parts of the world can be far worse. In Brazil in 2007, for example, local farmers who were peacefully occupying a GMO research plant owned by Syngenta as a protest against industrial agriculture were met with lethal violence by a private militia allegedly working for the Swiss corporation. Valmir Mota de Oliveira, 34, was a member of the militant movement Via Campesina, which had exposed the environmental crimes of Syngenta in Brazil. The group was protesting against the company's disdain for environmental regulations, having tested GMOs within the mandated 10-kilometer buffer zone next to the Iguazu National Park, when de Oliveira was killed in October 2007 with two shots from point-blank range and others were seriously wounded. The court case against the Swiss company dragged on for years, until being settled in November 2015. According to Judge Pedro Ivo Moreiro, the 2007 incident was "a massacre disguised as repossession of property," after it emerged that the private militia worked for a company called NF Seguranca, a security service used by Syngenta.

Closer to home, Syngenta's record on environmental protection is a disheartening one. The company is a major supplier of atrazine, an herbicide that has been banned in the European Union due to the harm it inflicts on wildlife and people. Even small concentrations of atrazine have been shown to alter the sexual development of male frogs, while exposure during the development phase of an organism's brain or reproductive organs could have even more serious effects. When Tyrone Hayes - a researcher who was hired by Syngenta to study the effects of atrazine - broke off his ties with the company and moved on to continue his work at Berkeley, the company embarked on an elaborate PR campaign to discredit Hayes and cast doubt on his research. It was Hayes' research that illustrated atrazine's impact on frogs.

Other pesticides peddled by Syngenta, known as "neonicotinoids" (and also banned in the EU), can paralyze insects and have been linked to the mass death of honeybees. Syngenta's brand of neonicotinoid, known as thiamethoxam, is a $627 million asset for the company.

The corn farmers' court battle might be moving forward, but US consumers are still waiting for a major political leader to stand up to corporations like Syngenta. Right now, the likeliest candidate to do so appears to be presidential contender Bernie Sanders. Back in 2013, Sanders proposed an amendment to a farm bill (shot down by his colleagues) that would have clearly given states the option of requiring labels on food containing GMOs. Throughout his career in the Senate, Sanders has defended family farms, fought for dairy farms in his own state of Vermont and pushed for schools to use local products. He is also an outspoken advocate for affordable nutrition and undocumented farmworkers. His political record and current rhetoric about corporate accountability suggest that he may be a more willing ally than most politicians in the fight to protect workers' and farmers' rights by standing up to companies like Syngenta.

In a small (though unsatisfying) measure of justice for those farmers in Brazil and elsewhere, Syngenta's shares have been cratering ever since the company spurned a proposed deal with Monsanto. In an effort to drum up interest and makes its own position look more tenable, Syngenta's leadership courted Chinese state-owned company ChemChina, which agreed in early February to buy it for a record $43 billion - even if most GMOs are banned in China.

The takeover/bailout could still be derailed, if the main regulatory body, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), rejects it on national security grounds. According to CFIUS rules, Syngenta's key US installations are built too close to military bases for the tie-up to pass approval and the government could ask the company to abandon them if the transaction is to be completed. This would be good news for embattled farmers in the United States, as Syngenta's bottom line would be dealt a massive blow since the company generates a quarter of its income in North America.

A small but growing number of Syngenta stockholders are in open revolt over the company's plans, upset over lost market value and the company's failure to pursue negotiations with potential merger partners or buyers. As far as corporate malfeasance goes, Syngenta's behavior over the past several years speaks to a company willing to go to extreme measures to silence and suppress both its critics and those most directly impacted by its pursuit of profit. Poisoning the environment and attacking vulnerable populations only serve to give Syngenta - and with it the industry as a whole - a bad name.

Originally Published: TruthOut

By: Abdullah Saeed Qureshi

China National Chemical Corp, known as ChemChina launched its $20 billion syndicated loan program that will help in funding the ($43.5 billion) purchase of Syngenta AG (NYSE:SYT), the company said on Friday. HSBC along with China CITIC Bank, Rabobank, Credit Suisse, and UniCredit will organize the financing for the seed-maker.

“The facility will be split between a $15 billion bridge loan and $5 billion to support seed-maker Syngenta’s existing borrowings,” ChemChina said in a press release. In addition, the financing has to be re-paid through a mixture of debt and equity so that Syngenta is able to retain an investment grade rating.

ChemChina gave consent to purchase Syngenta for $43 billion earlier this month in a deal that will change it into the world's biggest supplier of pesticides and agrochemicals. The planned loan program is much bigger than Chinese companies’ prior foreign mergers and acquisitions (M&A) financing, and will likely raise serious concerns over the country’s businesses heaping heavy debt to acquire foreign companies.

Moreover, the planned syndicated loan program will also be the largest ever in the world this year. Before this, Shire Plc raised $18 billion funding, according to Bloomberg. Last year, the German car maker Volkswagen signed a $22 billion syndicated loan pact.

This month, ChemChina also pursued a 625 million-euro loan, to help its acquisition of KraussMaffei Group, a leading German machine maker. It also raised loan worth €6.8 billion in 2015, in order to acquire Pirelli &C.SpA – a leading Italian car maker.

According to the official statement” “the financing has been launched to a select group of existing lenders to Syngenta and ChemChina. Lenders are being asked to commit US$1.25 billion each to the financing.” Moreover, the deal is expected to be completed by April, 2016.

Analysts believe that if ChemChina successfully acquires Syngenta, it could re-shape the Chinese biotech industry.  

Originally Published: China Business News

The break fee Swiss group Syngenta (SYNN.S) would have to pay should it back out of an agreed takeover by ChemChina has been cut to $848 million from the $1.5 billion first envisaged, a prospectus for the $43 billion deal published on Tuesday showed.

China made its boldest overseas takeover move yet when state-owned ChemChina agreed last month a cash bid for the Swiss seeds and pesticides group with the aim of improving domestic food production.

Syngenta would have to pay off ChemChina should the Swiss company breach the transaction agreement or back a rival offer, but ChemChina agreed in consultations with the Swiss Takeover Board to reduce the original amount, the Swiss prospectus said.

The $3 billion break fee that ChemChina would pay should the deal not go through remained unchanged.

Bernstein Research said it had clarified language in the prospectus to mean ChemChina would have to pay the $3 billion reverse break fee unless Syngenta has to divest more than $2.68 billion or 20 percent of sales to resolve anti-trust or U.S. regulatory issues, or ChemChina lost control of more than $1.54 billion of sales to resolve CFIUS-related issues.

CFIUS is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which has to sign off on the deal.

The deal could be terminated in a limited number of circumstances, including by either party if the offer has not become unconditional by June 30, 2017.

The offer is set to commence on March 23 and run until May 23 if not extended, according to the prospectus.

Loans have been lined up to provide full financing for the offer, but all or part of the debt may be replaced by equity funds, the prospectus said.

Other items in the prospectus included:

- ChemChina can squeeze out remaining shareholders against a cash payment if it is tendered 90 percent or more

- If ChemChina clears the 67 percent acceptance threshold but is tendered less than 90 percent, it may carry out a ChemChina-backed capital increase excluding a rights issue to minority shareholders.

(Reporting by Michael Shields in Zurich and Ludwig Burger in Frankfurt; Editing by David Goodman and Susan Thomas)

Originally Published: Reuters

By: Amy Mayer

Hundreds of lawsuits against seed company Syngenta could develop into a major class-action potentially involving almost every corn farmer in the country.

In 2013, China rejected certain American imports because they contained corn grown from Viptera seeds, a Syngenta product with a new genetically engineered trait. The trait was approved for sale in the United States, but China's regulators had not yet approved it, though they have since.

China is a huge market for U.S. corn, so when regulators turned away some imports it shook the markets. Lawyers have filed cases on behalf of farmers in state and federal courts. They want Syngenta to compensate farmers for lost sales, alleging that the company should be held responsible for its non-approved trait contaminating loads of corn that China otherwise would have accepted.

Many of those lawyers are preparing to ask for the cases to be certified as a class-action lawsuit, according to court documents. A class-action could include "virtually every corn farmer in America," the court documents say.

Right now, farmers have to file their own individual claims. If a class-action is certified by the court, they would automatically be included if they meet the definition of the class, unless they choose to opt out.

If damages are ultimately awarded, each farmer would still need to file the necessary paperwork individually.

Syngenta denies any wrongdoing and in an email said:

"Syngenta believes the Viptera China lawsuits lack any merit because American farmers have the right to access safe, effective, U.S.-approved technologies like Agrisure Viptera. Once a genetically engineered trait is approved for sale by federal authorities in the United States, it is entirely lawful to sell that GE seed in the United States."

A class-action that results in an award of damages could cost Syngenta significantly more than if the cases are heard separately. While it's unlikely every single corn farmer would seek compensation, a class-action would likely result in far more claims than if they were brought individually.

Originally Published: Iowa Public Radio

By: Neil Atkinson

Huddersfield firm Syngenta has vowed to “move on” after a court case over a chemical leak.

The Deighton-based company was fined £200,000 by a judge at Leeds Crown Court.

In response to the judge’s ruling, a spokesman said: “Syngenta has manufactured Paraquat safely in Huddersfield for more than 20 years and greatly regrets this incident.

“There were no injuries to personnel, there was no harm caused to the environment, and members of the public were not at risk from this incident.

Our company did everything that you would expect of a reputable operator by reporting the incident to the HSE, admitting to the offence at the first opportunity and taking all the necessary steps to stop a similar incident from happening again.

“The Judge said that Syngenta was a highly respectable company that took its health and safety responsibilities very seriously.

“New sentencing guidelines were introduced in February and whilst the fine is higher than it would have been at Magistrates Court in January, we fully accept the judge’s ruling and we now move on.”

Originally Published: The Huddersfield Daily Examiner

Senator Chuck Grassley and other U.S. lawmakers are pushing for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to have a formal role in weighing ChemChina's planned take over of Switzerland's Syngenta (SYNN.S), the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The USDA has previously voiced concern over the deal for Syngenta, which is a top U.S. supplier of pesticides, soybean seeds and corn, according to the Journal. 

(Reporting by Washington newsroom; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Originally Published: Reuters

By SustainablePulse,

A large group of Chinese experts and citizens have joined together to sign a protest letter against ChemChina’s acquisition of the Swiss pesticide giant Syngenta.

The protest letter is based on the serious health concerns many Chinese citizens have over GMO crops and pesticides. The letter can be found in full below and was even signed by China’s former Chemical Industry Minister Qin Zhongda:

Protest Inquiry Letter to

State Council State-Owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission Regarding ChinaChem Massive Funds Acquisition of GM/ Toxin Company Syngenta

（Submitted Date: 2016-03-31)

Respectful leading officials of State Council State-Owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission,

In Feb. 2016 ChinaChem Group announced that they will acquire Syngenta for U.S. Dollars 43 billion (about RMB300 billion). Media reports disclose evil backstage manipulator promoting this acquisition: The Blackwater Group, and JP Morgan – Chase involved in arranging U.S. Dollar 50 billion loans financing.

Syngenta, previously headquartered in Switzerland, is the third largest GM seed company of the world and is notorious in the introduction of the first generation GM crops. Syngenta is active in developing the next generation of GM crops, such as GM soybeans SYHT0H2, RR2 Yield-SCN, GM maize Agrisure VipteraG（MIR162）and Golden Rice. They might cause even greater risks, and will cause widespread and uncontrollable contamination to Chinese staple crops, and cause serious harm to the health of Chinese consumers, to food safety and to the livelihood of Chinese farmers.

Syngenta is also the developer and main producer of Atrazine (called You Qu Jin in China), Paraquat (Gramoxone), Dicamba and other high-risk pesticides.

The herbicide Atrazine (You Qu Jin) is an Endocrine Disruptor. It can harm the reproduction system, increase risk of cancer, and cause great harm to human health and the ecological system. It thus was banned by the EU in 2005. Deceived and misled by Syngenta’s propaganda for years, China at present has over 600 herbicide products containing You Qu Jin (Atrazine) “pesticide registered” in China, widespread without control!

Paraquat is another highly dangerous pesticide sold worldwide by Syngenta under name Gramoxone; Because of its cumulative harm, including eye injury, skin calcination and stimulation, even death, etc., 36 countries have already banned Paraquat.

On April 24, 2012, A No.1745 Announcement was jointly announced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Industry & Information, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of China: “Stop approving newly added Paraquat production, formulation facilities”. Davor Pisk, chief operation officer of Syngenta expressed their opinion on the China’s Paraquat banning statement: “We do not consider that the policy of the Chinese government is appropriate”, and resisted in action: The Syngenta Nantong wholly-owned company in 2015 expanded their “4000 tons/year Paraquat production” to “10,000 tons/year Paraquat production”!

Syngenta in fact has descended into a “Banished”: The Swiss Federal Council on Dec. 18, 2015 decided to extend the ban on GM crops to 2012! EU and Switzerland in Oct. 2003 decided to stop using Atrazine herbicide, a main product of Syngenta! In May 2013, the EU announced a ban on three new neonicotinoid insecticides containing Thiamethoxam amine, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam oxazine (for comparison, many pesticides and seed coatings that Syngenta promotes in China contain thiamethoxam oxazine)! As Syngenta can’t maintain operations in Europe, it moved to the USA.

Syngenta is also one of the most vicious transnational corporations like Monsanto, with rogue corporate culture: it uses rogue means to persecute Prof. Tyrone Hayes hired by Syngenta to evaluate the safety of Atrazine; it persecutes the German farmer who revealed the harm that Syngenta’s GM maize Bt176 has caused to the health of his cows.

Almost all European countries and some other developed nations, as well as many developing countries, are driving GM seed companies out of their markets and establishing laws to tightly restrict or ban cultivation of GM crops. Even the USA is quietly moving away from GM agriculture. Facing growing resistance by people around the world, corporations such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and other GM/agrochemical companies try desperately to reverse their decline and recover their massive investment falling into the garbage bin.

Under such a situation, Syngenta colludes with Monsanto, and the Blackwater, JP Morgan Chase, manipulator behind the screen, together with traitors in China, creates this transnational merge and acquisitions behind multiple layers of black curtains, with Monsanto’s false bidding (in fact helping Syngenta to increase their price) and JP Morgan Chase claimed U.S. dollars 50 billion “financing”, intend to sell this worthless Syngenta at a skyrocketing price of 43 billion to ChinaChem. However, this does not only involve money.

ChinaChem is exclusive distributor of Monsanto’s Roundup — a glyphosate herbicide, classified by WHO IARC as “probable carcinogen to humans” — in China (including Taiwan), India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippine, Thailand, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand. ChinaChem has direct legal responsibility for poisoning humans and the environment in these regions!

ChinaChem’s merge – acquisition of Syngenta, predictably, will sink China’s agriculture deeper into the GM-agrochem garbage trap! It will forever nourish Monsanto and Syngenta with the Chinese people’s hard-earned money and enable Monsanto and Syngenta to continually poison all of mankind with these huge GM tumors!

The practice of the past 20 years has proved GM agriculture bound together with agrochemicals has brought innumerable harm to human health and ecological safety. ChinaChem’s acquisition of Syngenta, the wide-spread promotion of GM — agrochemical agriculture and sales of GM food will completely destroy China’s agriculture and food security, and thoroughly destroy our nation and people!

Therefore, the Chinese people and people worldwide are strongly opposed to this transnational acquisition! ChinaChem must immediately stop this suicidal acquisition that will cause a genociding disaster to the Chinese nation!

The People’s Republic of China Constitution Clause 21 stipulates: “The state develops medical and health undertakings and… encourages and supports various types of health care facilities organized by the rural collective economic organizations, state enterprises, organizations and streets organizations, to carry out mass health activities, to protect people’s health”;

Clause 36 stipulates: “nobody is allowed to …… damage citizens’ physical health”;

Clause 54 stipulates: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland, must not in any way endanger the security, honor and interests of the motherland.”

The main responsibilities announced by the State Council State-owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission: “(3) Guidance to promote state-owned enterprise reform and restructuring, to promote the construction of modern enterprise system of the state-owned enterprises, perfect the corporate governance structure, promoting the strategic adjustment of state-owned economic layout and structure.”

According to the spirit stipulated by the constitution, the State Council State-owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission (Commision) and each of its officials, when they examine ChinaChem’s U.S. Dollar 43 billion acquisition – merging with Syngenta, it must assure that this acquisition — the most massive value acquisition on China’s state-owned history — “Protects the safety of the motherland”, places “protect people’s health” at priority position, and absolutely does not make decisions forming the constitution of crimes that “endanger the safety of the motherland”, “damage citizen’s physical health” which will surely cause all the people of the Chinese to vehemently oppose!

In order to help the Commission make the correct decision, we put forward the following requests:

(1) The ChinaChem Group in 2006 became the exclusive distributor of glyphosate herbicide Roundup and other Monsanto agrochemicals, has unshirkable responsibility to all the harm caused by extending Roundup’s Pesticide Registration in China to 2018. We therefore request the Commission to instruct China chemical group to release all the toxicology animal test reports, i.e. the basis for extending the Pesticide Registration of glyphosate herbicide, enabling us to recognize the truth of how Monsanto deceived the Chinese government and Chinese people!

(2) Syngenta is the culprit causing the flooding of Atrazine (You Qu Jin), Paraquat and Dicamba in China “endangering the safety of the motherland”, “damaging citizens’ physical health”. We herewith request the Commission to instruct Syngenta to release all the toxicology animal test reports and other safety evaluation documents for the basis of Atrazine (You Qu Jin), Paraquat and Dicamba Pesticide Registration in China, enabling us to recognize the truth of how Syngenta deceived the Chinese government and Chinese people!

(3) Request the Commission to organize an open, transparent and fair hearing on the case of which ChinaChem intends to acquire – merge Syngenta at U.S. Dollars 43 billion (about RMB300 billion), invite people’s congress representatives, committee members of CPPCC (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference), representatives of the democratic parties and consumers, question the ChinaChem Group Board of Directors and the Commission on the case of ChinaChem’s acquisition – merge with Syngenta and criminal evidence how Syngenta deceived the Chinese government and Chinese people!

(4) We herewith strongly request the officials of the Commission, to resolutely put a stop to the disastrous evil multinational acquisition! If we can’t stop this disastrous evil multinational acquisition – merge today, the whole Chinese nation and even global mankind will be disastrously harmed! The Chinese people and global mankind should not be sacrificed for Syngenta!

(5) If the Commission refuses our above four requests, we request a provision of a detailed explanation in response to us.

Question Inquiry Person:

Qin Zhong-da (92 years old, former Minister of Ministry of Chemical Industry),

Chen I-wan, Zhang De-qin, Gu Xiu-lin, Yang Xiao-lu, Luo Qi-yun, He Cheng-gao, Lv Yong-nian, Zhao Hua and over 400 individuals.

Contact person: Yang Xiao-lu.

March 26, 2016

Complete list of joint supporters in Chinese:

秦仲达（92岁，前化工部部长）、陈一文、张勤德、顾秀林、杨晓陆、罗其云、何承高、吕永岩、赵华、徐飞、巩献田、默明哲、李香珍、田香萍、刘立文、孙燕英、周靖东、陈武阳、刘芳、杨进志、马婷娜、肖向阳、朱景国、陈彦东、钟全英、戴小舟、余景兵、杨昌显、陈磊、曾令政、陈东宁、曹志安、刘现华、张立昆、王辉安、欧阳巧梅、陈福乐、杨东辉、赵荣来、邱允浩、张金宝、刘镇宝、萧世宽、廖章鼎、余兴、刘锦意、王勇、潘任远、李南、王鑫、杨松、李文、赵志涛、张凤苹、杜继红、徐红日、王新华、钟方婷、彭向发、傅传国、林茜、李松华、叶水涛、许志坚、杨丽、尹丽霞、何秀梅、刘朝晖、曹景官、魏本志、桂英、谢靖、姜华、张定坤、松涛、唐乐腾、张为民、潘奕达、丁肇峰、彭科华、苏群、战锤、正浩、吕志刚、张明、胡子瑜、胡津瑜、刘云辉、鄢浪云、邓绍伟、冯明喜、吴思仪、孙华、李长宽、张桂平、黄莉、梅钱旺、肖正秀、丁肇峰、徐小东、张西平、刘富贤、齐柳叶、田军保、梁文、梁清龙、聂虹、李高明、李润、李赢才、杨率、张定光、詹瀚、匡鹏程、王月霞、朝露、王明红、李树泉、赵鑫原、陈明、王茹、桂学峰、张琳娜、李裕来、李尚华、温永瑞、郎玉山、李全雪、陈华岳、王金涛、沈美丽、曹文质、杨昌河、陈晶、邱贻国、赵俊文、付欣雨、曹幸仁、尚凯、张超、张小林、李晶、邹丽萍、吕中、刘彩霞、任勇、鲍锋、梁美娟、李嘉雯、张化伟、尹帅军、孙又根、辛桂华、滕夫生、刁淑珍、李晨光、黄调泉、王海平、朱文琳、王晓红、李顺、马古林、黄泽元、秦珏、王建英、王德义、黎光寿、朱明、顾晓东、张二林、赵崑、董泽秀、王宏亮、沙维林、马为民、郭润祥、李晓辉、陈鸿、董建、高宽、骆玉涛、刘珊、高亚彬、邱红、钟方妤、李依临、王连朝、蒋学超、李月、董明、万山红、杨远祥、李小东、丁兰珍、王梦连、刘家全、石青华、冷颜、刘守康、王兆宏、马俊祥、康秀峰、肖琼、孔石红、许志坚、王永波、唐京波、赵德通、李中华、任娜、王志兵、薛红、徐惠萍、赵勇、万联平、张丹燕、王森、姚久民、邓荣伟、张光平、史鹏、王永涛、申明霞、薛晓东、邹长江、李志明、马月玲、冯军、李宏才、高玉娥、赵淑霞、王丽萍、张平、史思、王彦辉、陈航、何川、王美丽、薛晓方、王红莲、金顺爱、高雷红、宋小萍、 孙萌、陈巧兰、黄兰兰、王升营、李新、葛旭红、王薇、于秋会、唐煜森、伊璇、王芳、郭慧平、刘雪冰、徐凯军、王革、梁伟、韩雪、刘黎平、任旋、徐军、张喜悦、夏嫜娇、徐静、何青、赵力波、王春红、刘雨、宋晓明、张郡、刘慧、魏英杰、梁萌盟、王代可、张倩、李玉梅、王彦昆、沙乐平、韩昭云、周伟丽、刘莹、张菲、刘洋、于洪涛、谭文秀、赵玉海、桑丽珠、魏西海、赵小龙、李亚斌、吴金泽、孟天华、赵海平、王立征、周美彤、蔡燕、杨红、初晴、向朝霞、丁其兵、王红转、李田、冯思琪、王大力、周玉秋、陆晓红、徐秀花、罗晓、谢伟、王静、常红、周建伟、闵苏尔、陈津、张京梅、宋美娟、王大权、胡小燕、金桂金、张利华、薛羽、桑宏阳、马小封、杜秋玲、王巨潮、李改珍、徐绍峰、邹雷英、王占朝、黄英、常方、石连贵、徐晖、徐丽、王传宾、陈建忠、何青、王为民、孙素芳、王宁、刘黎红、李毅明、王玉红、葛晓青、杨晓晋、梁金梅、吴卫平、张梦飞、王吉娜、王福习、周立蓉、吉范梁、李尚润、王军霞、裘渊、王红云、周启公、王延吾、赵利群、李作华、朱守英、王伟娜、张建国、王继华、田小辉、金玉、王维娜、盛德平、王立涛、孙晋海、马京训、谷粒勇、王红梅、韩振刚、李振、王风连、董慧超、冯志民、王梦朝、韩振京、刘宝柱、王立营、韩瑞强、王换季、盛晓霞、孟曙光、李丽、王升根、盛文龙、王格格、罗珍、王云、孟成、黄兰珍、王传周、曾琴、孙梦圆、张晓平、王劲松、胡乃国、王锦洲、韩闵影、马海英、胡昭迎、王洪川、史青华、王大国、马双青、王娜娜、马海平、王登攀、董云婷、王贵忠、梁伟、卢燕、盛晓东、王小琴、张建、吴盟、王帅、马林、韩素敏、王忠友、马桂堂、王帅奇、王玉和、胡乃镇、温宝平、崔娟、王彦军、尹传霞、王彦坡、王云霞、韩振花、郭炳菊、王玉海、郭丽丽、韩素荣、冯现民、谷城山、耿慧杰、王信、韩西花、张桂英、王艳华、刘利刚、韩永强、谷晓磊、侯平军、顾增军、董云鹏、王志军、韩焕超、李继正、王宏凯、刘丽萍、李婴、冯仕凯

Originally Published: SustainablePulse

By SustainablePulse, 

The amount of the herbicide atrazine that’s released into the environment in the United States is likely harming most species of plants and animals, including mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, according to a risk assessment released Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA assessment of atrazine will lead to tighter regulatory limits on the product, manufactured by Swiss-based Syngenta AG, which will ultimately prevent farmers from being able to use it to control weeds in the U.S..

Atrazine is also well known as a hormone disruptor that has been linked to birth defects and cancer in humans, and contamination of ground-, surface- and drinking-water supplies. About 70 million pounds of atrazine are used in the United States each year.

The second-most widely used pesticide in the United States and already banned in Europe, atrazine was found to cause reproductive harm to mammals and birds in real-world scenarios, with EPA “levels of concern” surpassed nearly 200-fold, according to the new EPA assessment.

Atrazine is present in water levels much higher than are needed to kill frogs and others amphibians, whose populations are currently in steep decline across the United States. Numerous studies have shown that atrazine chemically castrates and feminizes male frogs at concentrations lower than the level allowed in drinking water by the EPA.

“Anyone who cares about wildlife, people and the environment should be deeply troubled by this finding,” said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “When the government’s own scientists say there’s enough atrazine in streams and rivers right now to kill frogs and other imperiled wildlife, we should be worried. How many animals have to die before we do what Europe did 12 years ago and ban atrazine?”

“When the amount of atrazine allowed in our drinking water is high enough to turn a male tadpole into a female frog, then our regulatory system has failed us,” said Donley. “We’ve reached a point with atrazine where more scientific analysis is just unnecessary — atrazine needs to be banned now.”

The latest findings come as the EPA is in the process of “registration review” of atrazine, a process designed to determine whether the chemical can safely be used in light of new scientific study. The assessment will inform EPA’s decision on whether to allow atrazine to be used for the next 15 years. The last time the agency fully analyzed the threats posed by atrazine was in 2003; no new registration decision has been made so far.

Originally Published: SustainablePulse 

Global food security and sovereignty could be threatened as China moves closer to embracing GM food

EXCERPT: [China’s] hesitation to approve genetically modified food production suggests the road to commercialisation is a rocky one. Sections of China’s middle class are increasingly looking towards more “natural” organically produced food, and recent food scares have not helped to boost public confidence.
—

ChemChina-Syngenta deal: why it matters

Adrian Ely
Eco-Business, 29 Aug 2016
http://www.eco-business.com/news/chemchina-syngenta-deal-why-it-matters/
[links to sources at the URL above]

* Global food security and sovereignty could be threatened as China moves closer to embracing GM food

A US national security panel this week cleared a deal proposed by state-owned Chinese company ChemChina to acquire Syngenta, the Switzerland-based seed and biotechnology agribusiness. At US$43 billion (287 billion yuan), it will be the largest foreign acquisition ever by a Chinese firm.

The deal also requires approval by antitrust authorities in Europe and the United States, but having cleared the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), chaired by the US Secretary of the Treasury and attended by representatives of 16 US departments and agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, it is likely to be given the go-ahead by the end of the year.

Environmentalists have long decried the concentration of power in the global food system. This deal, along with other pending and possible acquisitions, may leave just three companies with more than 75 per cent of the global market in seeds. So it is little wonder that politicians and civil society groups have reacted with concern at the prospect of further consolidation.

In the United States – which accounts for more than one quarter of Syngenta’s sales – Republican Iowa senator Chuck Grassley raised concerns about the effect of the deal, explaining that the food and agricultural sectors are part of the nation’s critical infrastructure. “I remain troubled about the long-term effects of continued consolidation in the seed industry and what that will mean for farmers who have fewer companies to buy seed from,” he told WNAX radio.

Two US organisations – the National Farmers Union and Food and Water Watch – had also urged CFIUS to reject the deal, citing national security risks, the transfer of critical technologies and negative impacts on farmers and consumers.

Their letter argued that the deal “accelerates the international consolidation of the food and agribusiness industries to the detriment of American farmers, rural communities, and consumers,” and suggested it would transfer critical patented technologies (not only in seeds, but also high-tech agrichemicals) into Chinese ownership, as well as “the weaker safety and security culture of Chinese chemical companies”.

The move by ChemChina seems to suggest that in the medium to long-term, the Chinese government is likely to embrace the production of genetically modified (GM) food. China’s approach to genetically modified crops builds on decades of huge state investment in research and development and its more recent support of emerging agri-biotech firms.

The company’s chairman Ren Jianxin, who is known for his strong government links and his reputation for acquiring both domestic and foreign firms, claims that his experience of living in the countryside during the Cultural Revolution taught him “what farmers want and how they work the land”.

If “what farmers want” is genetically modified seeds, it seems that Beijing agrees with him. The 13th Five Year Plan for the first time promised to actively promote GM crops in the period from 2016 to 2020, while also stressing the need for stringent oversight.

Yet at the same time, the hesitation to approve genetically modified food production suggests the road to commercialisation is a rocky one. Sections of China’s middle class are increasingly looking towards more “natural” organically produced food, and recent food scares have not helped to boost public confidence.

A spokesperson from Greenpeace linked the delayed re-approval of permits for GM rice in 2014 to “public concern around safety issues”, and the identification of illegal GM maize in Liaoning earlier this year (again reported by Greenpeace) has further illustrated how difficult it is to effectively regulate the technology.

In China, an open letter, apparently signed by the former minister for the chemical industry as well as anti-GMO activists, pointed to negative impacts of agri-chemicals on Chinese farmers and consumers and called for the case to be opened to China’s National People’s Congress representatives, committee members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, representatives of the democratic parties and consumers.

This story was originally published by Chinadialogue under a Creative Commons’ License and was republished with permission. Read the full story.

Originally Posted: GMWatch.org

The Associated Press

Big farms are about to get a lot bigger.

With six agricultural giants on the verge of merging into three separate companies, consumers and farmers are feeling uneasy about the global implications and how it might impact the food system.

WRITTEN BY Chase Purdy

Top executives from Bayer, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta today (Sept. 20) testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, making a case for why federal regulators should approve the mega-mergers, which stand to fundamentally reorganize global agriculture. (Executives from the sixth company involved in the consolidation, China National Chemical Corp., declined an invitation to appear at the hearing.)

The executives in attendance argued that the proposed mergers would combine their companies’ expertise and allow for greater efficiency in serving farmers and consumers. But whether that efficiency is worth the side effects of massive consolidation—possible price hikes and less competition in the marketplace—is an open question. In essence, should people put faith in three big companies to shepherd consumers and farmers into a world that can responsibly feed a growing global population?

Here’s what’s on the table

• On July 20, shareholders at Dow Chemical and DuPont agreed to a $59 billion merger that would bring under one umbrella two of the largest US chemical makers. The deal is awaiting US antitrust clearance.
• On Aug. 22, Chinese state-owned China National Chemical Corp. was cleared by US regulators to proceed with its $42 billion purchase of Swiss chemical and seeds company Syngenta. The deal, subject to US scrutiny because of Sygenta’s American business interests, marks the largest purchase of a foreign firm in Chinese history.
• On Sept. 14, Bayer, the German pharmaceutical and chemical giant, said it had reached an agreement to purchase US seed company Monsanto for $66 billion. If the deal is approved by US regulators, it would create the world’s largest seed and agriculture chemicals company.

The consolidation of these six highly competitive companies into three juggernauts has left many farmers and consumers uneasy. Consumers advocates say they worry the mergers will usher in a “new era of sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides.” Farmers worry that less competition in the marketplace will give the merged companies an ability to increase prices of seeds and chemicals—something that would be particularly harmful during a time when US farm incomes are dropping.

That’s part of the case that National Farmers Union president Roger Johnson made to senators, warning that approval of the mergers would lead not only to higher prices, but also less innovation and fewer products from which farmers can choose. Even the mighty American Farm Bureau lobby expressed some trepidation.

“Any one of these [merger and acquisition] activities could certainly be well understood; all of them occurring at the same time is the challenge,” said Bob Young, chief economist for the lobby. “Obviously you’d rather have six companies…but if the economics aren’t there to justify six companies, it just won’t happen.”

The corporate perspective

For their part, the company executives stressed that, in a world where internet companies such as Google can quickly pivot to manufacturing driverless cars and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos can invest in rockets, the nimbleness of agriculture will be paramount.

“Change can be rough for farmers,” testified Robb Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer. “But in our industry, it is changing. Farmers are best served with companies investing more in new technology.”

Fraley noted that 15 years ago, Monsanto invested $300 million in research and development; this year it has invested $1.5 billion. By way of comparison, he said big-name technology firms such as Apple are spending upwards of $10 billion a year on R&D.

Left unsaid by the companies was that, with the exception of Bayer, the US and European giants have experienced shrinking sales. As Republican senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina put it, Dow’s numbers “look like the EKG of a heart attack patient.”

From that perspective, the mergers are as much about maintaining profit and staying financially healthy as they are about the development of new technologies. It’s not just a case of American farmers needing more technologically advanced tools; it’s also a white flag from big agribusiness companies struggling with the fact that, despite all their efficiencies and inventions, the US market is demanding supplies that let farmers grow more profitable and less complicated organic and all-natural foods.

Whether that trend continues remains to be seen. For now, the mergers are a clear sign that companies that invest in high-tech seeds and chemicals are going through a rough patch, and they think consolidation is their way out of it.

Originally Posted: qz.com

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that three Hawaii counties cannot regulate genetically modified crops or pesticides.

Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan upheld a lower court’s decision that state laws regulating potentially harmful plants pre-empt county ordinances governing agriculture.

As a result, such ordinances that a federal judge had overturned won't go into effect.

In 2014, Maui County voters approved a ban on genetically engineered farming. Kauai County had imposed notification requirements for pesticide use by large companies, while Hawaii County had prohibited open-air testing of genetically modified crops.

Callahan ruled that the state’s pesticide law is comprehensive, and that the Legislature meant for it to be “exclusive of additional, local rules.”

The decision was a victory for seed companies that perform research in Hawaii such as Monsanto and Syngenta.

Dan Clegg, head of business operations for Monsanto Hawaii, told Honoluu Civil Beat that the company will continue “to support the communities in Maui, Molokai and Oahu where our approximately 1,000 local employees live and work.”

Syngenta spokeswoman Laurie Yoshida said the company is happy with the ruling, adding that it continues to voluntarily report its pesticide use on Kauai through the Good Neighbor Program.

George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety, which pushed for the bans, told The Associated Press that his group is “considering all legal options, including appeal.”

Originally Posted: bizjournals.com

As Americans gather with their families for Thanksgiving this week, new government data offers a potentially unappetizing assessment of the U.S. food supply—Residues of many types of bug-killing pesticides, fungicides and weed killing chemicals have been found in roughly 85 percent of thousands of foods tested.

Data released last week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows varying levels of pesticide residues in everything from mushrooms to potatoes and grapes to green beans. One sample of strawberries contained residues of 20 pesticides, according to the Pesticide Data Program report issued this month by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. The report is the 25th annual such compilation of residue data for the agency, and covered sampling the USDA did in 2015.

Notably, the agency said only 15 percent of the 10,187 samples tested were free from any detectable pesticide residues. That's a marked difference from 2014, when the USDA found that more than 41 percent of samples were "clean" or showed no detectable pesticide residues. Prior years also showed roughly 40-50 percent of samples as free of detectable residues, according to USDA data. The USDA said it is not "statistically valid" to compare one year to others, however, because the mix of food sampled changes each year. Still the data shows that 2015 was similar to the years prior in that fresh and processed fruits and vegetables made up the bulk of the foods tested.

Though it might sound distasteful, the pesticide residues are nothing for people to worry about, according to the USDA. The agency said "residues found in agricultural products sampled are at levels that do not pose risk to consumers' health and are safe …"

But some scientists say there is little to no data to back up that claim, stating that regulators do not have sufficient comprehensive research regarding how consumption of residues of multiple types of pesticides impact human health over the long term, and government assurances of safety are simply false.

"We don't know if you eat an apple that has multiple residues every day what will be the consequences 20 years down the road," said Chensheng Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "They want to assure everybody that this is safe but the science is quite inadequate. This is a big issue."

The USDA said in its latest report that 441 of the samples it found were considered worrisome as "presumptive tolerance violations," because the residues found either exceeded what is set as safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or they were found in foods that are not expected to contain the pesticide residues at all and for which there is no legal tolerance level. Those samples contained residues of 496 different pesticides, the USDA said.

Spinach, strawberries, grapes, green beans, tomatoes, cucumbers and watermelon were among the foods found with illegal pesticide residue levels. Even residues of chemicals long banned in the U.S. were found, including residues of DDT or its metabolites found in spinach and potatoes. DDT was banned in 1972 because of health and environmental concerns about the insecticide. 

Absent from the USDA data was any information on glyphosate residues, even though glyphosate has long been the most widely used herbicide in the world and is commonly sprayed directly on many crops, including corn, soy, wheat and oats. It is the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s branded Roundup herbicide, and was declared a probable human carcinogen last year by a team of international cancer scientists working with the World Health Organization. But Monsanto has said glyphosate residues on food are safe. The company asked the EPA to raise tolerance levels for glyphosate on several foods in 2013 and the EPA agreed to do so.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also annually samples foods for residues of pesticides. New documents obtained from the FDA show illegal levels of two types of insecticides—propargite, used to kill mites, and flonicamid, usually aimed at killing aphids and whiteflies—were recently found in honey. Government documents also show that DEET, a common insect repellant, was recently detected by regulators in honey, and the herbicide acetochlor was found on mushrooms.

FDA scientists also reported illegally high levels of the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam found in rice, according to information from the agency. Syngenta has asked the EPA to allow for higher residues of thiamethoxam permitted in numerous crops because the company wants it to have expanded use as a leaf spray. That request is still pending, according to an EPA spokeswoman. 

The most recent public residue report issued by the FDA shows that violation rates for pesticide residues have been climbing in recent years. Residue violations in domestic food samples totaled 2.8 percent for the year 2013; double the rate seen in 2009. Violations totaled 12.6 percent for imported foods in 2013, up from 4 percent in 2009. 

Like the USDA, the FDA has skipped glyphosate in decades of testing for pesticide residues. But the agency did launch a "special assignment" this year to determine what levels of glyphosate might be showing up in a small group of foods. An FDA chemist reported finding glyphosate residues in honey and several oatmeal products, including baby food.

Private testing data released this month reported the presence of glyphosate residues in Cheerios cereal, Oreo cookies and a variety of other popular packaged foods. 

Questions on Cumulative Impacts

Whether or not consumers should worry about food containing pesticide residues is a matter of ongoing dispute. The trio of federal agencies involved in pesticide residue issues all point to what they refer to as "maximum residue limits" (MRLs), or "tolerances," as guidelines for what they say is considered safe. The EPA uses data supplied by the agrichemical industry to help determine where MRLs should be set for each pesticide and each crop the pesticides are expected to be used with. 

As long as most of foods sampled show pesticide residues in food below the MRLs, there is no reason to worry, the USDA maintains. "The reporting of residues present at levels below the established tolerance serves to ensure and verify the safety of the Nation's food supply," the 2015 residue report states. The agrichemical industry offers even broader assurances, saying there is nothing to fear from consuming residues of the chemicals it sells farmers for use in food production, even if they exceed legal tolerances. 

But many scientists say the tolerances are designed to protect the pesticide users more than consumers. Tolerances vary widely depending upon the pesticide and the crop. The tolerance for the insecticide chlorpyrifos on an apple, for instance, can be very different than the amount of chlorpyrifos allowed on citrus fruits, or on a banana or in milk, according to government tolerance data.

In the case of chlorpyrifos, the EPA has actually said it wants to revoke all food tolerances because studies have linked the chemical to brain damage in children. Though the agency has long considered residues of chlorpyrifos safe, now the agency says, they may not be. 

The "EPA cannot, at this time, determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures for which there is reliable information, are safe," the EPA said last year. Dow AgroSciences, which developed chlorpyrifos in the 1960s, is protesting the EPA efforts, arguing chlorpyrifos is a "critical tool" for farmers. In the latest USDA residue report, chlorpyrifos was found in peaches, apples, spinach, strawberries, nectarines and other foods, though not at levels considered to violate tolerances.

The EPA defends its work with tolerances, and says it has been complying with the Food Quality Protection Act that requires the EPA to consider the cumulative effects of residues of substances "that have a common mechanism of toxicity." The agency says that to set a tolerance for a pesticide, it looks at studies submitted by pesticide companies to identify possible harmful effects the chemical could have on humans, the amount of the chemical likely to remain in or on food, and other possible exposures to the same chemical. 

But critics say that is not good enough—assessments must consider more realistic scenarios that take into account the broader cumulative impacts of many different types of pesticide residues to determine how safe it is to consume the mixtures seen in a daily diet. Given that several pesticides commonly used in food production have been linked to disease, declines in cognitive performance, developmental disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, there is an urgent need for more in-depth analysis of these cumulative impacts, many scientists say. The National Research Council has declared that "dietary intake represents the major source of pesticide exposure for infants and children, and the dietary exposure may account for the increased pesticide-related health risks in children compared with adults."

"With the ubiquitous exposure to chemical mixtures, assurances of safety based on lists of individual toxicity thresholds can be quite misleading," said Lorrin Pang, an endocrinologist with the Hawaii Department of Health and a former advisor to the World Health Organization. 

Tracey Woodruff, a former EPA senior scientist and policy advisor who specializes in environmental pollutants and child health, said there is a clear need for more research. Woodruff directs the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. 

"This is not a trivial matter," she said. "The whole idea of looking at cumulative exposures is a hot topic with scientists. Evaluating individual tolerances as if they occur in solo is not an accurate reflection of what we know—people are exposed to multiple chemicals at the same time and the current approaches do not scientifically account for that." 

Critics say scrutiny of pesticide safety is likely to only soften given President-elect Donald Trump's decision to name Myron Ebell to oversee transition efforts at the EPA. Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is a staunch advocate of pesticides and their safety.

"Pesticide levels rarely, if ever, approach unsafe levels. Even when activists cry wolf because residues exceed federal limits that does not mean the products are not safe," states the SAFEChemicalPolicy.org website Ebell's group runs. "In fact, residues can be hundreds of times above regulatory limits and still be safe."

"The mixed messages make it hard for consumers to know what to believe about the safety of pesticide residues in food," said Therese Bonanni, a Clinical Dietitian at Jersey Shore University Medical Center. 

"Although the cumulative effect of consuming these toxins over a lifetime is not yet known, short-term data suggests there is certainly a reason to be cautious. The message to consumers becomes very confusing."

Originally Posted: ecowatch.com

Vote will take place 27 January

The European Commission has confirmed that it is planning a vote on Friday 27 January where it will push for the first GMO cultivation authorisations since 1998.

The crops in question include two new strains of GM maize — Syngenta’s Bt11 and DuPont Pioneer’s 1507 — as well as the re-approval for Monsanto’s MON810, which is already grown in Spain and Portugal.

There’s more information here:
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17233

Please share this information with all your contacts and get in touch with officials to ask them to oppose cultivation.

The Greens have created an online mobilisation site so that you can easily email or tweet to the key ministers in your country, in the national languages:
http://greens-efa-service.eu/nogmo/

Here you can find the agenda for the meeting on 27 January:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/sc_modif-genet_20170127_agenda.pdf

Originally Posted: gmwatch.org

A key vote on Friday saw European nations oppose the European Commission’s proposal to authorize the first new GM crops for cultivation since 1998, but failed to achieve the necessary majority for the proposal to be formally shelved.

The decision concerns GM maize types from Syngenta and Dow-Pioneer (technical names BT11 and 1507) and the renewal of the only GM maize currently allowed to be grown in the EU (Mon810 from Monsanto). All three crops have been modified to produce insecticide in their own cells. The two new crops can also tolerate being sprayed with glufosinate, a highly toxic herbicide produced by Bayer.

EU member states were voting on a proposal to authorize two new strains of GM maize, and the re-authorization of the one GM crop currently grown in the EU (also maize).

Thirteen member states voted to reject the new crops, while eight voted in favor. Twelve voted to remove the one existing GM crop from EU fields and ten to keep it. However, despite the convincing rejection of new crops, neither decision met the qualified majority voting bar and it is now up to the European Commission to decide what to do next.

The European nations voted as follows:

Renewal of Mon810:

12 Member states voted against the proposal: Bulgaria, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Slovenia

10 Member states voted in In favor: Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom

6 Member States abstained: Belgium, Germany, Croatia, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia

Authorization of 1507 and Bt 11:

13 Member States voted against: Bulgaria, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden

8 Member States voted in favor: Estonia, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Finland, United Kingdom

7 Member States abstained: Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia

GM Freeze Director Liz O’Neill said:

“With Europe’s nations divided, the Commission must protect our right to grow and eat GM Free by sending these crops packing. GM Bt maize is designed to kill pests but its impact on beneficial insects like butterflies is poorly understood. National bans are supposed to give countries control over their farms but no measures have been put in place to protect those who have used the “opt-out” mechanism (including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) from contamination. Maize pollen travels kilometers and is no more likely to respect a national border than to turn left at a roundabout so keeping GM out of your own back yard is never going to be enough.

“The UK’s vote in favor of all three GM maize crops, despite each being banned in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, should ring alarm bells for anyone who wants to protect biodiversity and consumer choice in post-Brexit Britain.”

Originally Posted: sustainablepulse.com

By SustainablePulse,

A large group of Chinese experts and citizens have joined together to sign a protest letter against ChemChina’s acquisition of the Swiss pesticide giant Syngenta.

The protest letter is based on the serious health concerns many Chinese citizens have over GMO crops and pesticides. The letter can be found in full below and was even signed by China’s former Chemical Industry Minister Qin Zhongda:

Protest Inquiry Letter to

State Council State-Owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission Regarding ChinaChem Massive Funds Acquisition of GM/ Toxin Company Syngenta

（Submitted Date: 2016-03-31)

Respectful leading officials of State Council State-Owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission,

In Feb. 2016 ChinaChem Group announced that they will acquire Syngenta for U.S. Dollars 43 billion (about RMB300 billion). Media reports disclose evil backstage manipulator promoting this acquisition: The Blackwater Group, and JP Morgan – Chase involved in arranging U.S. Dollar 50 billion loans financing.

Syngenta, previously headquartered in Switzerland, is the third largest GM seed company of the world and is notorious in the introduction of the first generation GM crops. Syngenta is active in developing the next generation of GM crops, such as GM soybeans SYHT0H2, RR2 Yield-SCN, GM maize Agrisure VipteraG（MIR162）and Golden Rice. They might cause even greater risks, and will cause widespread and uncontrollable contamination to Chinese staple crops, and cause serious harm to the health of Chinese consumers, to food safety and to the livelihood of Chinese farmers.

Syngenta is also the developer and main producer of Atrazine (called You Qu Jin in China), Paraquat (Gramoxone), Dicamba and other high-risk pesticides.

The herbicide Atrazine (You Qu Jin) is an Endocrine Disruptor. It can harm the reproduction system, increase risk of cancer, and cause great harm to human health and the ecological system. It thus was banned by the EU in 2005. Deceived and misled by Syngenta’s propaganda for years, China at present has over 600 herbicide products containing You Qu Jin (Atrazine) “pesticide registered” in China, widespread without control!

Paraquat is another highly dangerous pesticide sold worldwide by Syngenta under name Gramoxone; Because of its cumulative harm, including eye injury, skin calcination and stimulation, even death, etc., 36 countries have already banned Paraquat.

On April 24, 2012, A No.1745 Announcement was jointly announced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Industry & Information, General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of China: “Stop approving newly added Paraquat production, formulation facilities”. Davor Pisk, chief operation officer of Syngenta expressed their opinion on the China’s Paraquat banning statement: “We do not consider that the policy of the Chinese government is appropriate”, and resisted in action: The Syngenta Nantong wholly-owned company in 2015 expanded their “4000 tons/year Paraquat production” to “10,000 tons/year Paraquat production”!

Syngenta in fact has descended into a “Banished”: The Swiss Federal Council on Dec. 18, 2015 decided to extend the ban on GM crops to 2012! EU and Switzerland in Oct. 2003 decided to stop using Atrazine herbicide, a main product of Syngenta! In May 2013, the EU announced a ban on three new neonicotinoid insecticides containing Thiamethoxam amine, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam oxazine (for comparison, many pesticides and seed coatings that Syngenta promotes in China contain thiamethoxam oxazine)! As Syngenta can’t maintain operations in Europe, it moved to the USA.

Syngenta is also one of the most vicious transnational corporations like Monsanto, with rogue corporate culture: it uses rogue means to persecute Prof. Tyrone Hayes hired by Syngenta to evaluate the safety of Atrazine; it persecutes the German farmer who revealed the harm that Syngenta’s GM maize Bt176 has caused to the health of his cows.

Almost all European countries and some other developed nations, as well as many developing countries, are driving GM seed companies out of their markets and establishing laws to tightly restrict or ban cultivation of GM crops. Even the USA is quietly moving away from GM agriculture. Facing growing resistance by people around the world, corporations such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and other GM/agrochemical companies try desperately to reverse their decline and recover their massive investment falling into the garbage bin.

Under such a situation, Syngenta colludes with Monsanto, and the Blackwater, JP Morgan Chase, manipulator behind the screen, together with traitors in China, creates this transnational merge and acquisitions behind multiple layers of black curtains, with Monsanto’s false bidding (in fact helping Syngenta to increase their price) and JP Morgan Chase claimed U.S. dollars 50 billion “financing”, intend to sell this worthless Syngenta at a skyrocketing price of 43 billion to ChinaChem. However, this does not only involve money.

ChinaChem is exclusive distributor of Monsanto’s Roundup — a glyphosate herbicide, classified by WHO IARC as “probable carcinogen to humans” — in China (including Taiwan), India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippine, Thailand, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand. ChinaChem has direct legal responsibility for poisoning humans and the environment in these regions!

ChinaChem’s merge – acquisition of Syngenta, predictably, will sink China’s agriculture deeper into the GM-agrochem garbage trap! It will forever nourish Monsanto and Syngenta with the Chinese people’s hard-earned money and enable Monsanto and Syngenta to continually poison all of mankind with these huge GM tumors!

The practice of the past 20 years has proved GM agriculture bound together with agrochemicals has brought innumerable harm to human health and ecological safety. ChinaChem’s acquisition of Syngenta, the wide-spread promotion of GM — agrochemical agriculture and sales of GM food will completely destroy China’s agriculture and food security, and thoroughly destroy our nation and people!

Therefore, the Chinese people and people worldwide are strongly opposed to this transnational acquisition! ChinaChem must immediately stop this suicidal acquisition that will cause a genociding disaster to the Chinese nation!

The People’s Republic of China Constitution Clause 21 stipulates: “The state develops medical and health undertakings and… encourages and supports various types of health care facilities organized by the rural collective economic organizations, state enterprises, organizations and streets organizations, to carry out mass health activities, to protect people’s health”;

Clause 36 stipulates: “nobody is allowed to …… damage citizens’ physical health”;

Clause 54 stipulates: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland, must not in any way endanger the security, honor and interests of the motherland.”

The main responsibilities announced by the State Council State-owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission: “(3) Guidance to promote state-owned enterprise reform and restructuring, to promote the construction of modern enterprise system of the state-owned enterprises, perfect the corporate governance structure, promoting the strategic adjustment of state-owned economic layout and structure.”

According to the spirit stipulated by the constitution, the State Council State-owned Assets Supervision & Administration Commission (Commision) and each of its officials, when they examine ChinaChem’s U.S. Dollar 43 billion acquisition – merging with Syngenta, it must assure that this acquisition — the most massive value acquisition on China’s state-owned history — “Protects the safety of the motherland”, places “protect people’s health” at priority position, and absolutely does not make decisions forming the constitution of crimes that “endanger the safety of the motherland”, “damage citizen’s physical health” which will surely cause all the people of the Chinese to vehemently oppose!

In order to help the Commission make the correct decision, we put forward the following requests:

(1) The ChinaChem Group in 2006 became the exclusive distributor of glyphosate herbicide Roundup and other Monsanto agrochemicals, has unshirkable responsibility to all the harm caused by extending Roundup’s Pesticide Registration in China to 2018. We therefore request the Commission to instruct China chemical group to release all the toxicology animal test reports, i.e. the basis for extending the Pesticide Registration of glyphosate herbicide, enabling us to recognize the truth of how Monsanto deceived the Chinese government and Chinese people!

(2) Syngenta is the culprit causing the flooding of Atrazine (You Qu Jin), Paraquat and Dicamba in China “endangering the safety of the motherland”, “damaging citizens’ physical health”. We herewith request the Commission to instruct Syngenta to release all the toxicology animal test reports and other safety evaluation documents for the basis of Atrazine (You Qu Jin), Paraquat and Dicamba Pesticide Registration in China, enabling us to recognize the truth of how Syngenta deceived the Chinese government and Chinese people!

(3) Request the Commission to organize an open, transparent and fair hearing on the case of which ChinaChem intends to acquire – merge Syngenta at U.S. Dollars 43 billion (about RMB300 billion), invite people’s congress representatives, committee members of CPPCC (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference), representatives of the democratic parties and consumers, question the ChinaChem Group Board of Directors and the Commission on the case of ChinaChem’s acquisition – merge with Syngenta and criminal evidence how Syngenta deceived the Chinese government and Chinese people!

(4) We herewith strongly request the officials of the Commission, to resolutely put a stop to the disastrous evil multinational acquisition! If we can’t stop this disastrous evil multinational acquisition – merge today, the whole Chinese nation and even global mankind will be disastrously harmed! The Chinese people and global mankind should not be sacrificed for Syngenta!

(5) If the Commission refuses our above four requests, we request a provision of a detailed explanation in response to us.

Question Inquiry Person:

Qin Zhong-da (92 years old, former Minister of Ministry of Chemical Industry),

Chen I-wan, Zhang De-qin, Gu Xiu-lin, Yang Xiao-lu, Luo Qi-yun, He Cheng-gao, Lv Yong-nian, Zhao Hua and over 400 individuals.

Contact person: Yang Xiao-lu.

March 26, 2016

Complete list of joint supporters in Chinese:

秦仲达（92岁，前化工部部长）、陈一文、张勤德、顾秀林、杨晓陆、罗其云、何承高、吕永岩、赵华、徐飞、巩献田、默明哲、李香珍、田香萍、刘立文、孙燕英、周靖东、陈武阳、刘芳、杨进志、马婷娜、肖向阳、朱景国、陈彦东、钟全英、戴小舟、余景兵、杨昌显、陈磊、曾令政、陈东宁、曹志安、刘现华、张立昆、王辉安、欧阳巧梅、陈福乐、杨东辉、赵荣来、邱允浩、张金宝、刘镇宝、萧世宽、廖章鼎、余兴、刘锦意、王勇、潘任远、李南、王鑫、杨松、李文、赵志涛、张凤苹、杜继红、徐红日、王新华、钟方婷、彭向发、傅传国、林茜、李松华、叶水涛、许志坚、杨丽、尹丽霞、何秀梅、刘朝晖、曹景官、魏本志、桂英、谢靖、姜华、张定坤、松涛、唐乐腾、张为民、潘奕达、丁肇峰、彭科华、苏群、战锤、正浩、吕志刚、张明、胡子瑜、胡津瑜、刘云辉、鄢浪云、邓绍伟、冯明喜、吴思仪、孙华、李长宽、张桂平、黄莉、梅钱旺、肖正秀、丁肇峰、徐小东、张西平、刘富贤、齐柳叶、田军保、梁文、梁清龙、聂虹、李高明、李润、李赢才、杨率、张定光、詹瀚、匡鹏程、王月霞、朝露、王明红、李树泉、赵鑫原、陈明、王茹、桂学峰、张琳娜、李裕来、李尚华、温永瑞、郎玉山、李全雪、陈华岳、王金涛、沈美丽、曹文质、杨昌河、陈晶、邱贻国、赵俊文、付欣雨、曹幸仁、尚凯、张超、张小林、李晶、邹丽萍、吕中、刘彩霞、任勇、鲍锋、梁美娟、李嘉雯、张化伟、尹帅军、孙又根、辛桂华、滕夫生、刁淑珍、李晨光、黄调泉、王海平、朱文琳、王晓红、李顺、马古林、黄泽元、秦珏、王建英、王德义、黎光寿、朱明、顾晓东、张二林、赵崑、董泽秀、王宏亮、沙维林、马为民、郭润祥、李晓辉、陈鸿、董建、高宽、骆玉涛、刘珊、高亚彬、邱红、钟方妤、李依临、王连朝、蒋学超、李月、董明、万山红、杨远祥、李小东、丁兰珍、王梦连、刘家全、石青华、冷颜、刘守康、王兆宏、马俊祥、康秀峰、肖琼、孔石红、许志坚、王永波、唐京波、赵德通、李中华、任娜、王志兵、薛红、徐惠萍、赵勇、万联平、张丹燕、王森、姚久民、邓荣伟、张光平、史鹏、王永涛、申明霞、薛晓东、邹长江、李志明、马月玲、冯军、李宏才、高玉娥、赵淑霞、王丽萍、张平、史思、王彦辉、陈航、何川、王美丽、薛晓方、王红莲、金顺爱、高雷红、宋小萍、 孙萌、陈巧兰、黄兰兰、王升营、李新、葛旭红、王薇、于秋会、唐煜森、伊璇、王芳、郭慧平、刘雪冰、徐凯军、王革、梁伟、韩雪、刘黎平、任旋、徐军、张喜悦、夏嫜娇、徐静、何青、赵力波、王春红、刘雨、宋晓明、张郡、刘慧、魏英杰、梁萌盟、王代可、张倩、李玉梅、王彦昆、沙乐平、韩昭云、周伟丽、刘莹、张菲、刘洋、于洪涛、谭文秀、赵玉海、桑丽珠、魏西海、赵小龙、李亚斌、吴金泽、孟天华、赵海平、王立征、周美彤、蔡燕、杨红、初晴、向朝霞、丁其兵、王红转、李田、冯思琪、王大力、周玉秋、陆晓红、徐秀花、罗晓、谢伟、王静、常红、周建伟、闵苏尔、陈津、张京梅、宋美娟、王大权、胡小燕、金桂金、张利华、薛羽、桑宏阳、马小封、杜秋玲、王巨潮、李改珍、徐绍峰、邹雷英、王占朝、黄英、常方、石连贵、徐晖、徐丽、王传宾、陈建忠、何青、王为民、孙素芳、王宁、刘黎红、李毅明、王玉红、葛晓青、杨晓晋、梁金梅、吴卫平、张梦飞、王吉娜、王福习、周立蓉、吉范梁、李尚润、王军霞、裘渊、王红云、周启公、王延吾、赵利群、李作华、朱守英、王伟娜、张建国、王继华、田小辉、金玉、王维娜、盛德平、王立涛、孙晋海、马京训、谷粒勇、王红梅、韩振刚、李振、王风连、董慧超、冯志民、王梦朝、韩振京、刘宝柱、王立营、韩瑞强、王换季、盛晓霞、孟曙光、李丽、王升根、盛文龙、王格格、罗珍、王云、孟成、黄兰珍、王传周、曾琴、孙梦圆、张晓平、王劲松、胡乃国、王锦洲、韩闵影、马海英、胡昭迎、王洪川、史青华、王大国、马双青、王娜娜、马海平、王登攀、董云婷、王贵忠、梁伟、卢燕、盛晓东、王小琴、张建、吴盟、王帅、马林、韩素敏、王忠友、马桂堂、王帅奇、王玉和、胡乃镇、温宝平、崔娟、王彦军、尹传霞、王彦坡、王云霞、韩振花、郭炳菊、王玉海、郭丽丽、韩素荣、冯现民、谷城山、耿慧杰、王信、韩西花、张桂英、王艳华、刘利刚、韩永强、谷晓磊、侯平军、顾增军、董云鹏、王志军、韩焕超、李继正、王宏凯、刘丽萍、李婴、冯仕凯

Originally Published: SustainablePulse

By SustainablePulse, 

The amount of the herbicide atrazine that’s released into the environment in the United States is likely harming most species of plants and animals, including mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, according to a risk assessment released Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA assessment of atrazine will lead to tighter regulatory limits on the product, manufactured by Swiss-based Syngenta AG, which will ultimately prevent farmers from being able to use it to control weeds in the U.S..

Atrazine is also well known as a hormone disruptor that has been linked to birth defects and cancer in humans, and contamination of ground-, surface- and drinking-water supplies. About 70 million pounds of atrazine are used in the United States each year.

The second-most widely used pesticide in the United States and already banned in Europe, atrazine was found to cause reproductive harm to mammals and birds in real-world scenarios, with EPA “levels of concern” surpassed nearly 200-fold, according to the new EPA assessment.

Atrazine is present in water levels much higher than are needed to kill frogs and others amphibians, whose populations are currently in steep decline across the United States. Numerous studies have shown that atrazine chemically castrates and feminizes male frogs at concentrations lower than the level allowed in drinking water by the EPA.

“Anyone who cares about wildlife, people and the environment should be deeply troubled by this finding,” said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “When the government’s own scientists say there’s enough atrazine in streams and rivers right now to kill frogs and other imperiled wildlife, we should be worried. How many animals have to die before we do what Europe did 12 years ago and ban atrazine?”

“When the amount of atrazine allowed in our drinking water is high enough to turn a male tadpole into a female frog, then our regulatory system has failed us,” said Donley. “We’ve reached a point with atrazine where more scientific analysis is just unnecessary — atrazine needs to be banned now.”

The latest findings come as the EPA is in the process of “registration review” of atrazine, a process designed to determine whether the chemical can safely be used in light of new scientific study. The assessment will inform EPA’s decision on whether to allow atrazine to be used for the next 15 years. The last time the agency fully analyzed the threats posed by atrazine was in 2003; no new registration decision has been made so far.

Originally Published: SustainablePulse