WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 2022 --- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced details of the U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) $300 million investment, including with American Rescue Plan funds, in a new Organic Transition Initiative that will help build new and better markets and streams of income for farmers and producers. Organic production allows producers to hold a unique position in the marketplace and thus take home a greater share of the food dollar.

According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, the number of non-certified organic farms actively transitioning to organic production dropped by nearly 71 percent since 2008. Through the comprehensive support provided by this initiative USDA hopes to reverse this trend, opening opportunities for new and beginning farmers and expanding direct consumer access to organic foods through increased production.

The initiative will deliver wrap-around technical assistance, including farmer-to-farmer mentoring; provide direct support through conservation financial assistance and additional crop insurance assistance, and support market development projects in targeted markets.

Farmers face challenging technical, cultural, and market shifts while transitioning to organic production, and even during the first years after successful organic certification, said Vilsack. Through this multi-phased, multi-agency initiative, we are expanding USDAs support of organic farmers to help them with every step of their transition as they work to become certified and secure markets for their products.

USDAs Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Risk Management Agency (RMA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are the primary agencies supporting the Initiative, which will focus on three areas.

Transition to Organic Partnership Program

Through this initiative, USDA aims to ensure that farmers transitioning to organic have the support they need to navigate that transition, including a full supply chain to American consumers who demand organic choices in their supermarkets daily. AMS will build partnership networks in six regions across the United States with trusted local organizations serving direct farmer training, education, and outreach activities. The organizations will connect transitioning farmers with mentors, building paid mentoring networks to share practical insights and advice. Each regional team will also provide community building, including train-the-mentor support; as well as technical assistance, workshops, and field days covering topics including organic production practices, certification, conservation planning, business development (including navigating the supply chain), regulations, and marketing to help transitioning and recently transitioned producers overcome technical, cultural, and financial shifts during and immediately following certification. USDA will provide up to $100 million for this program.

Direct Farmer Assistance

NRCS will develop a new Organic Management conservation practice standard and offer financial and technical assistance to producers who implement the practice. Payments will be modeled on those already available to producers meeting the existing nutrient and pest management conservation practice standards. USDA will provide $75 million for this effort. This will include an increase in organic expertise throughout its regions, creating organic experts at each of its regional technology support centers. These experts will train staff who provide direct services to USDA customers. These services include hosting hands-on organic training for state and field NRCS staff and fielding organic-related staff questions.

USDA will provide $25 million to RMA for the new Transitional and Organic Grower Assistance Program (TOGA) which will support transitioning and certain certified organic producers participation in crop insurance, including coverage of a portion of their insurance premium.

Organic Pinpointed Market Development Support

Stakeholders have shared that specific organic markets have market development risks due to inadequate organic processing capacity and infrastructure, a lack of certainty about market access, and insufficient supply of certain organic ingredients. This AMS initiative will focus on key organic markets where the need for domestic supply is high, or where additional processing and distribution capacity is needed for more robust organic supply chains. Examples of markets seeking support include organic grain and feed; legumes and other edible rotational crops; and livestock and dairy. USDA will invest up to $100 million to help improve organic supply chains in pinpointed markets. The Department will seek stakeholder input on these pinpointed initiatives beginning in September, resulting in an announcement of specific policy initiatives later this year.

Other USDA Organic Assistance

This USDA initiative complements existing assistance for organic producers, including FSAs Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP) and Organic and Transitional Education and Certification Program (OTECP). OCCSP helps producers obtain or renew their organic certification, and OTECP provides additional funding to certified and transitioning producers during the pandemic.

NRCS offers conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), which can provide assistance to help with managing weeds and pests, and establishing high tunnels, improving soil health, and implementing other practices key to organic operations. RMA also administers federal crop insurance options available to organic producers, including Whole Farm Revenue Protection and Micro Farm.

The National Organic Program (NOP) is a federal regulatory program, administered by AMS, that develops and enforces consistent national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold in the United States.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming Americas food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy, and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate-smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Original post:

USDA to Invest up to $300 million in New Organic Transition Initiative - USDA.gov

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Food And Beverges Global Market Opportunities And Strategies To 2031" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global food and beverages market reached a value of nearly $5,818.25 billion in 2021, having grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.5% since 2016. The market is expected to grow from $5,818.25 billion in 2021 to $8,010.98 billion in 2026 at a rate of 6.6%. The market is then expected to grow at a CAGR of 5.4% from 2026 and reach $10,406.81 billion in 2031.

Growth in the historic period resulted from an increase in clean-label, organic, and non-GMO (genetically codified organism) products, a rise in alcohol consumption, increased pet ownership by Gen Z and Gen Y adults, strong economic growth in emerging markets, influence of digital media marketing and social media, low interest rates and growing number of health-conscious consumers.

Going forward, the increasing organic food consumption, growing demand for immunity boosting foods and beverages, rising penetration of organized retail, rapid growth in ecommerce, increasing demand for premium and organic pet food, faster economic growth and food security initiatives will drive the growth. Factors that could hinder the growth of the food and beverages market in the future include complexity of acceptance and purchase intentions of consumers, climate change and global warming, a shift towards vegan eating and the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Asia Pacific was the largest region in the food and beverages market, accounting for 41.9% of the total in 2021. It was followed by Western Europe, and then the other regions. Going forward, the fastest-growing regions in the food and beverages market will be Africa, and, Middle East where growth will be at CAGRs of 13.7% and 10.6% respectively. These will be followed by Eastern Europe, and, South America where the markets are expected to grow at CAGRs of 7.0% and 6.8% respectively.

The top opportunities in the food and beverages market segmented by nature will arise in the conventional market segment, which will gain $1,888.6 billion of global annual sales by 2026. The top opportunities in the food and beverages market segmented by distribution channel will arise in the supermarkets/hypermarkets market segment, which will gain $895.4 billion of global annual sales by 2026. The food and beverages market size will gain the most in China at $295.3 billion.

Major Market Trends

Scope

Markets Covered:

1) By Type: Alcoholic Beverages; Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Grain Products; Bakery And Confectionery; Frozen, Canned And Dried Food; Dairy Food; Meat, Poultry And Seafood; Syrup, Seasoning, Oils, And General Food; Animal And Pet Food; Tobacco Products; Other Foods Products

a) By Alcoholic Beverages: Beer (Breweries); Wine And Brandy (Wineries); Spirits (Distilleries)

b) By Non-Alcoholic Beverages: Coffee And Tea; Soft Drink And Ice

c) By Grain Products: Flour; Rice And Malt; Other Grain Products

d) By Bakery And Confectionery: Sugar And Confectionery Products; Cookie, Cracker, Pasta,And Tortilla; Bread And Bakery Products; Breakfast Cereal

e) By Frozen, Canned And Dried Food: Frozen Food; Canned And Ambient Food

f) By Dairy Food Market: Milk And Butter; Cheese, Dry, Condensed, And Evaporated Dairy Products; Ice Cream And Frozen Dessert

g) By Meat, Poultry And Seafood Market: Meat Products; Poultry; Seafood

h) By Syrup, Seasoning, Oils And General Food Market: Fats And Oils; Seasoning And Dressing; Flavoring Syrup And Concentrate

i) By Animal And Pet Food Market: Animal Food; Pet Food

j) By Tobacco Products Market: Cigarettes, Cigars And Cigarillos; Smoking And Other Tobacco Products

k) By Other Foods Market: Perishable Prepared Food; Snack Food; All Other Miscellaneous Food

2) By Distribution Channel: Supermarkets/Hypermarkets; Convenience Stores; E-Commerce; Other Channels

3) By Nature: Organic; Conventional Food And Beverages

Key Topics Covered:

1. Food and Beverages Market Executive Summary

2. Table of Contents

3. List of Figures

4. List of Tables

5. Report Structure

6. Introduction and Market Characteristics

7. Product/Service Analysis -Product/Service Examples

8. Supply Chain Analysis

9. Customer Information

10. Major Market Trends

11. Impact Of COVID-19 On The Market

12. Global Market Size And Growth

13. Food and Beverages Market, Regional Analysis

14. Global Food and Beverages Market Segmentation

15. Food And Beverages Market Segments

16. Global Food and Beverages Market Comparison with Macro Economic Factors

17. Asia-Pacific Market

18. Western Europe Market

19. Eastern Europe Market

20. North America Market

21. South America Market

22. Middle East Market

23. Africa Market

24. Competitive Landscape And Company Profiles

25. Key Mergers and Acquisitions In The Market

26. Global Food and Beverages Market Opportunities And Strategies

27. Food And Beverages Market, Conclusions And Recommendations

28. Appendix

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/l9fobr

More here:

Food And Beverges Global Market Report 2022: Increasing Organic Food Consumption, Growing Demand for Immunity Boosting Foods and Beverages &...

GRAND RAPIDS, MI Whole Foods Market, a natural and organic foods grocery store chain, opened its first West Michigan store last week at 2897 Radcliff Ave. SE. in Kentwood.

I will be here probably every week, maybe a little more often now that I see theres a whole kitchen, said Michelle Taveras, of Grand Rapids, who attended the Aug. 17 grand opening with her husband, Ruben.

Related: Shoppers really excited as West Michigans first Whole Foods Market opens near Grand Rapids

The 45,400-square-foot store has more than 200 products from Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin, plus full-service meat and seafood counters, artisan cheeses, fresh-baked bread, food and salad bars, and a full-service coffee bar.

Taveras picked up salads, pastas, empanadas and veggies from the hot bar.

The new store, open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, is located just off 28th Street SE near Woodland Mall, was packed on Wednesday. The Austin, Texas-based chain is owned by Amazon and the Kentwood location is the eighth Whole Foods Market in Michigan. Other locations are in East Lansing, Ann Arbor, and metro Detroit.

I think a lot of people, especially in Grand Rapids, are realizing the importance of locally-sourced and better quality food, said Sydnee Ruger, of Wayland, who was at the store with her husband and two sons.

31

Whole Foods Market opens in West Michigan

Click into the gallery above to see photos, or click here for a direct link to the gallery.

More on MLive:

Play with Me, an anti-racism mural, encourages representation, sense of belonging

Students in Kent County community schools get support, services to remove barriers to learning

New charter school in Muskegon promises robust STEM curriculum in military-style environment

Rapid bus system makes route changes after Byron Township axes contract

See the original post:

I will probably be here every week, says Whole Foods Market shopper at grand opening - MLive.com

Sign up for Restaurant SmartBrief today, free.

Consumer demand for organic fruits and vegetables was already on the rise before March 2020 and the craving for fresh produce surged even more after the pandemic hit and peoples focus on health and wellness shifted into overdrive.

Sales of both organic and conventional produce soared in the second quarter of 2020, growing by double digits in both dollar value and volume, fueled both by new concerns about healthy eating and the panic buying that defined the start of the pandemic.

Now, inflation has consumers making tougher choices in the grocery store and rising prices have become a factor in decisions shoppers make in the produce aisle, especially when deciding between organic and conventional fruits and vegetables.

But, while the volume of organic produce sales dipped slightly in the second quarter of this year from the year-ago period, sales measured by dollar value were up 3.7%, according to the Organic Produce Networks Organic Produce Performance Report, which analyzed retail sales data compiled by Nielsen. The report covered sales in a range of retail channels including supermarkets, convenience and dollar stores and mass merchants.

The findings indicate that budget-conscious shoppers made tougher choices in both organic and conventional produce purchases amid rising prices sales of organic produce by volume declined 2.8% while the conventional category fell 2%.

Organic produce sales have been rising steadily in the past decade or so. In its most recent Organic Farming survey, the USDA reported a 27% increase in sales of organic vegetables grown in the open between 2016 and 2019, a 44% jump in sales of fruits and tree nuts and a 49% rise in sales of vegetables grown under protective covering and indoors.

The next USDA survey is due out this December and its likely to reflect further increases in the 2019 report, 29% of farmers surveyed said they planned to increase production of organic produce.

Another report, this one from The Hartman Group, found that 60% of consumers surveyed reported buying organic fresh produce in the past three months, and the report also reflected consumers growing interest in organic foods in other categories including plant-based meat and dairy alternatives.

Inflation has driven up prices throughout the produce section. Average prices for conventional fruits and vegetables grew 9.2% to $1.71 per pound, while organic, which started from a higher price point, rose 6.7% to $3.22 per pound, according to the OPN report.

The increases reflect the fact that prices for some organic products surged while others grew more modestly. For example, the average price of organic avocados grew more than 20% in the second quarter from the year-ago period, resulting in a 6% increase in sales by dollars while volumes fell 13.5%.

Conversely, sales of organic bananas, the lowest priced fruit in the category, grew 4% by volume and 8% by dollar amount. Additionally, sales of blackberries, the only organic fruit that saw a price decrease, rose 28% by volume and 27.6% by dollars.

The seal we know today that signifies produce that meets the standards for USDA organic certification began in 1990 when Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act with the goal of setting national standards for organically produced food. Until then, the word organic didnt really have an official definition or any rules about when it could be used to market products.

According to the USDA Produce can be called organic if its certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

The rulemaking process took more than a decade and the final rule took effect in October 2002. After that, growers and food producers that wanted to use the certified organic label had to qualify for certification by an accredited third-party certifier.

The Organic Produce Networks report covers the quarter through May, which ended just as farmers market season was getting underway in many parts of the country. Farmers markets, which werent covered by the report, feed demand for local produce and are often a more affordable option for stretching grocery budgets during the season.

Farmers selling certified organic produce at seasonal markets have become more common, but its also not rare to find farmers selling fruits and vegetables grown using organic practices without the certification.

Earning certification can be an expensive process and, during the three years of transitioning fields, crops grown in those fields cant use the organic label. Still, the farmers that grew the crops can take them to local farmers markets and connect with consumers interested in where their food comes from and how its grown.

And, as inflation continues to drive up grocery prices, local farmers markets are also becoming more attractive to cash-strapped consumers looking to keep healthy produce in their diets.

I know a lot of people before would say that shopping at the farmers market was more expensive than the grocery store, but now those prices are getting a little closer, registered dietitian Adante Hart told CNBC earlier this summer.

Read more from SmartBrief:

________________________________________________

If you liked this article, sign up for SmartBriefs free email newsletterfrom the National Restaurant Association. Its among SmartBriefs more than 250 industry-focused newsletters.

See the rest here:

How inflation is affecting decisions in the produce aisle - Smartbrief

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Functional food Ingredients Market Size, Market Share, Application Analysis, Regional Outlook, Growth Trends, Key Players, Competitive Strategies and Forecasts, 2022 to 2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global functional food ingredients market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8.5 %. Technological advancement in food and beverage sector has led to healthy growth in this sector. Functional foods and beverages are those that provide an additional health benefit to the consumer beyond basic nutrition.

There is increasing demand for functional food across the globe. The change in lifestyle, rise in income levels and adoption of healthy consumption are the key factors of the functional food ingredients market. The functional food inhibits disease preventing, health boosting properties which in turn provide them with wide range of applications. The increase in health awareness among the people across globe tends to be the key driver in the market. Key applications of functional food are food and beverages, personal care, pharmaceuticals, animal feed. The functional food market is expected to grow in future as there is trend of organic products.

Increase in Consumption of Nutritious Food Drives the Market

There is tremendous rise in consumption of nutritious food products to ensure good health. The natural and organic food items are largely dominated by the market. The rise in demand has increased from past few decades, the diet food has also attracted the healthy consumers across various regions. The weight loss or management is a health benefit consumers are interested in getting from foods. About one-third of Americans listed increased energy, cardiovascular health, healthy aging or digestive health by use of functional food. In 2021 the global launches of functional food grew by 7.7 %. The pandemic has increased the social awareness of healthy consumption of food and beverages.

The change in lifestyle now includes consumption of healthy food by ensuring weight management, fresh mood and sufficient amount of protein intake. One of the biggest functional categories that we expect food and beverages to incorporate more in 2021 is those with a focus on mental health and mood modifying ingredients. We also expect repositioning around food and beverages that are not always deemed healthy for example, beers for running, hard seltzers, and fermented foods that provide probiotic benefits.

High Cost Restricting the Growth of the Market

The development of functional food is complex, expensive and uncertain. However various efforts are made by research and innovation departments in companies to assure cost efficient production. Technology used and high demand of functional food are key factors for driving the market. There is continuous investment on research and development to improve the market. The consumer needs have an increase in demand for past few years. The market is expected to grow if there is success in cost efficient methods. Instead of high cost there is high demand, this will drive the market in case of low cost products.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Preface

2. Executive Summary

3. Functional food Ingredients Market: Business Outlook & Market Dynamics

4. Functional food Ingredients Market: By Type, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

5. Functional food Ingredients Market: By Benefits, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

6. Functional food Ingredients Market: By Application, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

7. North America Functional food Ingredients Market, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

8. UK and European Union Functional food Ingredients Market, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

9. Asia Pacific Functional food Ingredients Market, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

10. Latin America Functional food Ingredients Market, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

11. Middle East and Africa Functional food Ingredients Market, 2020-2030, USD (Million)

12. Company Profile

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/fzhhml

The rest is here:

Functional food Ingredients Market Report 2022: Increase in Consumption of Nutritious Food Driving Growth - ResearchAndMarkets.com - Business Wire

The city of Rio de Janeiro is working with local favelas to build what organizers say will be the biggest urban garden in the world as part of a government-funded initiative known as Hortas Cariocas, intended to popularize the consumption of organic produce and provide a source of income to disadvantaged families.

Once completed, the urban garden will span several surrounding favelas connected by a green strip of land alongside the Madureira Mestre Monarco Park, located in the north zone of the city, including the communities of Cajueiro, Palmeirinha, Serrinha, Buriti, and Faz-Quem-Quer. The green corridor will be formed between the communities of Madureira and Guadalupe. When the expansion is finished, the garden will be as large as 15 soccer fields.

Up to 100,000 families will eventually benefit from the project every month, according to Julio Cesar Barros, the founder of Hortas Cariocas and director of agroecology organic gardening for Rio de Janeiros municipal environment agency.

Making organic food more affordable and accessible is one of the main drivers of the project, Barros said. The result of our project is not to have a beautiful garden, Barros said. A beautiful garden is a consequence of our work. The result of our production is to see how many plates of food we are able to serve.

Read the complete article at http://www.bloomberg.com.

Visit link:

Brazil aims to build the world's biggest urban garden by 2024 - hortidaily.com

By Hilary Schmidt, International Banker

As the world continues to deal with the grim spectre of surging inflation this year, countries worldwide are scrambling to contain runaway prices whilst also attempting to prevent their economies from entering deep recessionary territory. Few sectors have experienced more pronounced price appreciationand contributed more significantly to the global inflation frenzythan food. Whether agricultural commodities, food and beverage products, or even ancillary industries such as food-processing equipment, it has undeniably been a year for investors to broaden their exposures to the food sector.

The most direct way to gain exposure to the food sector is to invest directly in agricultural commodities. This can be done by identifying a specific commodity and investing in futures contracts of said commodity. Or, as is more common these days, one can participate in a fund with exposure to a broader range of agricultural products. The Elements Linked to Rogers International Commodity Index-Agriculture Total Return (RJA), for instance, is an exchange-traded note (ETN) that tracks the performance of the Rogers International Commodity IndexAgriculture Total Return, a well-known index representing the weighted value of a basket of 20 of the most liquid agricultural commodity futures contracts. It is also a sub-index of the broader Rogers International Commodity Index.

The fund was launched in 2007, and as of the end of July, it could claim almost $190 million in assets under management (AUM), which places it at the smaller end. Nonetheless, this ETN has performed solidly year-to-date, generating more than 8 percent gains, while its 1-year, 3-year and 5-year returns are all spectacular, at 20.2 percent, 77.9 percent and 52.8 percent, respectively. The funds largest constituents are wheat (20.06 percent), corn (13.61 percent), cotton 11.60 percent, soybean (8.60 percent) and coffee (5.73 percent).

But theres no denying that the commodities asset class is often highly volatileseldom more clearly demonstrated than in 2022, it must be addedmeaning that terrifying lows can swiftly follow dizzying highs. As such, investors seeking more stability in performance can also invest in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that focus on food and beverage companies, the performances of which typically do not fluctuate as wildly as that of underlying agricultural commodities.

The Invesco Dynamic Food & Beverage ETF (PBJ) is one such fundindeed, it is the oldest dedicated food ETF. It invests at least 90 percent of its total assets in the Dynamic Food & Beverage Intellidex Index, comprising securities of 30 US food and beverage companies. These companies are principally engaged in manufacturing, selling or distributing food and beverage products, agricultural products and products related to developing new food technologies. The fund and index are rebalanced and reconstituted quarterly in February, May, August and November.

PBJ thus offers a lower-risk equity-investment option to investors than agricultural commodities, as demonstrated by the funds performance over the years. Year-to-date performance stands at 1.7 percent, while 1-year (11.2 percent), 3-year (11.3 percent), 5-year (8.3 percent) and 10-year (10.1 percent) are all more than respectable. Its holdings represent a fairly equal mix of small-cap, mid-cap and large-cap companies, as well as a mostly even division between growth, blend and value stocks. Fund allocations are also relatively more even among its holdings than other food ETFs, with General Mills (5.5 percent), Keurig Dr Pepper (5.4 percent), Sysco Corp (5.3 percent), Hershey Co (5.2 percent) and PepsiCo (5.1 percent) the companies with the largest weightings.

Or, if mature food companies dont interest investors for one reason or another, they also have the opportunity to expand their horizons and target a more supplementary aspect of the gigantic food ecosystem. For instance, one might be more interested in companies engaged in agricultural activity, thus almost combining many of the desirable qualities of both the aforementioned RJA and PBJ fundsthe early-stage, upstream food-industry exposure of the former and the equity (rather than commodity) returns of the latter.

The VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) provides just such exposure. The fund tracks the performance of the MVIS Global Agribusiness Index, which comprises companies involved in agri-chemicals; animal health; fertilizers; seeds and traits; farm and irrigation equipment and farm machinery; aquaculture and fishing; livestock; cultivation and plantations (including grain, oil palms, sugar cane, tobacco leaves, grapevines, etc.); and trading of agricultural products.

Currently, the fund invests in 52 companies, more than half based in the United States. Germany, Canada, Japan, Chile, Norway, China, the United Kingdom, Brazil and Australia make up the rest of the top 10 locations. Perhaps even more surprising is the diversity in sector exposure with Materials (32.5 percent), Consumer Staples (30.4 percent), Industrials (19.3 percent) and Health Care (17.8 percent) the principal constituents.

And with $1.6 billion in assets under management (nearly $0.5 billion of which has flooded in since the outbreak of war in Ukraine in late February), MOO is amongst the largest food/agriculture ETFs in the space. Its near-term performance has been rather mixed, with the month of July enjoying 6.3 percent gains, while three-month and year-to-date performances have been less impressive, at -6.8 percent and -3.7 percent, respectively. Longer-term returns have been solid, however, with 1-year, 3-year, 5-year and 10-year all positive, at 1.34 percent, 12.62 percent, 11.63 percent and 8.34 percent, respectively.

Given the importance investors place on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues when deciding on which asset classes and investment products they seek to fund in todays markets, VanEck has also recently launched its Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF (VEGI). Eligible companies for the fund must meet certain ESG standards related to food and agriculture sustainability and safety. According to VanEck, this fund invests in the businesses pioneering new ways to feed a global population of eight billion and rising primarily by:

The fund tracks the MVIS Global Future of Food ESG Index, which comprises the largest and most liquid companies offering products and services related to meat and dairy alternatives, organic foods, food flavours and innovative agriculture technologies. This includes firms with at least 50 percent of their revenues from plant-based or cultured meat, protein or dairy alternatives; vertical or urban farming; precision agriculture, including companies involved with irrigation and smart water grid equipment; greenhouse equipment; autonomous and robotic farming; or agriculture-related equipment. But it excludes agricultural chemicals and plant seeds; food flavours and functional ingredients; and organic or health foods.

Currently, VEGI holds a portfolio of 35 companies, with US multinational ingredient provider Ingredion given the largest weighting (7.7 percent), followed by Canadian dairy firm Saputo (5.4 percent), Irish food company Kerry Group (5.0 percent), US packed-bakery food company Flowers Foods (4.6 percent) and US specialty-performance ingredients firm Balchem Corp (4.6 percent).

See the original post here:

The Best Ways to Invest in the Food Sector - International Banker

Farmers in Ohio expressed strong support for crop insurance during a listening session with members of the House Agriculture Committee on Monday, but some producers wanted the policies to be means-tested or more focused on encouraging climate-smart practices.

Bill Myers, a farmer in northeast Ohio, urged Reps. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., and Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, not to reduce premium subsidies, noting that farmers were dealing with increased input costs and rising interest rates.

He said the disaster programs that predated the current crop insurance system failed to provide aid when farmers needed it most.

"I would suggest you look really strongly at not lowering the amount of the subsidy because its going to be tough on ag at this time with rising inputs, fuel, everything else that's happened to us, he said.

He added, Let's be proactive and make sure that we don't create a problem or pull the rug out from the producer at the time we can't afford it.

Ohio Farmers Union President Joe Logan told the lawmakers the program needed to be reformed to address climate change.

I think we probably need to reconfigure crop insurance in a way that rewards farmers for building soil health," Logan said. "That is a way that we can both improve the overall resilience of agriculture and also save money on the crop insurance payments."

He didnt elaborate on that idea; the witnesses were only allowed to address the lawmakers for a couple of minutes.

Eli Dean, an organic grower whose family has a 750-acre operation near Sandusky, said the crop insurance program ensures that producers are compensated quickly after a disaster, but he suggested reducing the amount of benefits going to very large operations.

Congress should put some limits, caps, in place so that the largest farms in the country don't keep getting larger, while the smallest and the barely midsize ones like ours can't compete, Dean said.

But Paul Herringshaw, a member of the Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Association, said a top priority for Ohio farmers is protecting the current insurance system, which he said had been attacked from both the left and the right. He said lawmakers should look at ways to enhance the program both in terms of effectiveness and cost.

Herringshaw, who farms near Bowling Green, also called for raising the reference price for wheat, saying the current price is not aligned with the current cost of production.

According to a recent analysis by economists at The Ohio State University and University off Illinois, the 2022 cost of producing wheat far exceeds the projected reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programs because market increases for wheat lagged well behind price rises for corn and soybeans. The 2024 PLC reference is estimated to remain at $5.50, the statutory minimum, while the ARC price is estimated at $5.39 a bushel.

Some producers also pressed the lawmakers to consider the needs of farmers who raise fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops.

Kristy Buskirk, who grows organic produce and cut flowers near Tiffin, said local facilities for flash freezing were needed to make it easier to market food locally.

We want increased investments in local and regional food systems, she said.

Vegetable grower Bob Jones of Huron, Ohio, noted that specialty crops receive a relatively small percentage of the funding in the farm bill thats directed toward agriculture; the vast majority of funding goes toward the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and farm commodity spending is largely directed toward row crops and dairy producers.

We get the tick on the tail at the end of the dog, Jones said of specialty crop growers.

The sugar program also got some attention. Kirk Vashaw, CEO of Spangler Candy Co. in Bryan, Ohio,which makes a number of popular candies and is the only manufacturer of candy canes in the United States, appealed to the lawmakers to overhaul the sugar program to lower the price of the commodity.

Vashaw said the company has 40 jobs in Ohio and would like to bring back 200 more that are located at a manufacturing plant in Mexico. To do that, the company need ssts be able to buy sugar in the United States at free-market prices, he said.

The USDA supports domestic sugar prices by regulating sugar imports.

For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.

More here:

Lawmakers hear mixed messages on crop insurance in Ohio - Agri-Pulse

After they were introduced in the mid-1990s, GMO crops were met with a buzzsaw of regulations and skepticism because they involved the transfer of genes between species, thus giving rise to concerns of potential health hazards to humans and animals and harm to the environment. These concerns were never given validity by any scientific evidence.

There has never been one reported instance of harm caused to humans by eating GMO foods. Nevertheless, opponents of GMOs were able to manufacture concerns and distrust which slowed their acceptance among the public. In addition, the heavy hand of regulation that most countries imposed on GMOs boosted the cost of research and development and deterred their cultivation. As a result, GMOs were largely developed by large agri-business multinationals for a few major crops such as corn, sugar beets and soybeans with Bayer (which owns Monsanto), Corteva (formed via the merger of the agribusiness divisions of Dow and Dupont) and Syngenta (a Swiss company that was purchased in 2015 by China National Chemical Corporation) dominating the GMO seed market. This has led to charges that GMOs are controlled by an oligarchy of giant multinationals who have developed biotechnology crops that are not in the interest of consumers but instead are in the interest of large farmers.

New Plant Breeding Technologies, particularly gene-editing tools such as CRISPR, are generally coming under less government scrutiny and regulation because they are perceived as being less potentially dangerous since the changes that occur mimic mutations that could happen naturally. Also, the changes are not a product of the transference of DNA between species which sparked unwarranted concerns that GMOs were an out of control science experiment that could create unintended consequences.

Reduced regulation and cost of entry has resulted in a plethora of new companies entering the gene-editing crop field. They are involved in researching and developing new and innovative foods such as:

This lighter touch of government regulation for gene-editing is occurring at a time when GMOs are becoming more acceptable and being adopted by a growing list of developing countries. Perhaps the most important recent development was the decision by China to approve new regulations to set out a clear path for the approval of GMO crops.

Since 1997, China has commercialized six GMO products; cotton, tomato, sweet pepper, petunia, poplar, and papaya, but only papaya and cotton are currently in commercial production.

The decision to accelerate the commercialization of GMOs was prompted by the realization that hesitancy towards GMOs was stifling the seed industry, the need to reduce dependency on foreign imports of food, particularly corn and soybeans, which are used extensively as animal feed, and the need to increase food production to reflect the growing affluence of the population. Under the new regulations, if a GM trait has been approved as safe by the Agriculture Ministry, it only requires a one-year production trial to verify its safety. Production of GMO corn is expected to begin sometime in 2023.

On January 25, the Chinese government issued draft rules that reduced regulations for gene-edited crops. The new rules stipulate that once gene-edited crops have completed pilot trials, a production certificate can be applied for. As a result, gene-edited crops could take only a year or two to get formal approval. Although no gene-edited crops have been commercialized, Chinese scientists have conducted extensive research in the field, and Chinas research institutes have published more research reports on gene-edited crops than any other country.

Despite a well-funded campaign by anti-GMO and anti-GE advocates to spread dis-information more and more nations, particularly developing countries, are adopting GE crops:

In 2021, Nigeria started growing GMO insect resistant cowpeas and is currently conducting confined field trials for GM insect-resistant and drought-tolerant corn, bio-fortified Sorghum, Virca Plus Cassava (resistant to Brown Streak Disease) and Nitrogen-and Water-Use Efficient and Salt Tolerant rice.

Kenya has authorized the approval of field performance trials for a disease resistant cassava and will begin growing GMO corn this year. Ghana is likely to follow Nigeria and approve the growing of GMO cowpeas in 2022. Two required regulatory field trials have been successfully concluded in Ghana for Nitrogen Use Efficient Rice.

The USDA Biotechnology Report for Indonesia for December, 2021, noted, to date, 20 GE corn, 14 GE soybean, three GE sugarcane, one GE potato, four GE canola, and five GE cotton varieties have undergone risk assessment for either food, feed, or environmental safety. Of these, a GE sugar cane variety, has undergone all three assessments. The GE sugar cane developed by state-owned PT Perkebunan Nusantara XI, is the first GE crop to meet all existing regulatory requirements for public release. A GE blight resistant potato is expected to be commercialized by 2025.

In 2021, the Philippines approved the cultivation of golden rice, which enhances the vitamin A content of the crop, thus helping to reduce the health problems associated by an insufficient amount of Vitamin A in the diet. Bangladesh is expected to follow the Philippines and approve the growing of golden rice in the near future. In addition, it is conducting research and field trials for disease resistant potatoes, tomatoes and wheat and insect resistant cotton (Bt).

On March 24, 2021, Vietnam issued a Master Plan outlining the development of agricultural biotechnology to 2030. According to the USDA biotechnology report for Vietnam, the plan calls for the facilitation of research and application and of biotechnology in a group of key agricultural products to increase quality and productivity, adapt with climate change, and resist pests and disease; increase investment in local agricultural biotechnology industries; and upgrade capacities in plant breeding technologies, gene technologies, and animal and plant cell technologies. The plan also sets objectives in applying gene technologies, plant cell technologies and new technologies to create new varieties with high-quality, high-yield, climate-resilient and disease-resistant traits for key crops.

With some exceptions, the countries that cultivate GMOs have adopted a lighter brush of regulations for gene-edited crops while those that do not grow GMOs have shut the door on gene-edited crops.

The largest grower of GMOs is the United States which accounted for 37.6% of all acreage in 2019. In March of 2018, the USDA issued a statement that said, Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are not plant pests or developed using plant pests. This includes a set of new techniques that are increasingly being used by plant breeders to produce new plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods. The newest of these methods, such as genome editing, expand traditional plant breeding tools because they can introduce new plant traits more quickly and precisely, potentially saving years or even decades in bringing needed new varieties to farmers.

USDA Secretary Perdue, said Plant breeding innovation holds enormous promise for helping protect crops against drought and diseases while increasing nutritional value and eliminating allergens.

Brazil, the second largest grower of GMOs, Argentina, the third largest and Paraguay, the sixth largest have adopted a policy in which gene-edited crops and food are regulated as conventional plants unless they contain foreign DNA.

Canada is the fourth largest grower of GMO crops. On May 18, Health Canada issued new guidelines regarded genetically engineered crops which essentially deregulate them. Under the new regulation regime Health Canada will no longer regulate or conduct safety assessments for foods produced from genetically edited plants unless they contain foreign DNA. With regards to concerns about the possible health and environmental impact of gene-edited crops, Health Canada said, Theres a consensus that the use of gene editing technologies doesnt present any unique safety concerns compared to other more conventional methods of plant breeding. As such, Health Canada should regulate gene-edited products of plant breeding in the same manner as all other products of plant breeding. The new regulations will mean that crops produced via gene-editing technologies will be considered to be safe and will not require a pre-market safety assessment. GMO crops however will still require pre-market approval.

Commenting on the decision, Rick White, chair of the Canada Grains Council, said, This will open up the very real possibility of dramatic improvements for small- and large-acre crops alike, from productivity improvements to new solutions for emerging pest pressures to advances in food and fuel crops that will benefit the entire value chain including consumers.

India is the fifth largest growing of GMO crops all of which are Bt cotton. There have been attempts to widen the scope of GMO crop production by growing GMO mustardand Bt brinjal but a strong and vocal anti-GMO movement in India has made it impossible to sanction the cultivation of additional GMO crops. A draft proposal that would regulate gene-editing crops similar to conventionally bred crops was pending with the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee for over two years before being largely approved by the government at the end of March. Under the terms of the new regulations, genome edited plants or organisms that do not contain any foreign DNA will not be subjected to the same biosafety standards as genetically modified crops and they will no longer be regulated by the Genetic Engineered Appraisal Committee.

Public Research laboratories in India are conducting gene-editing research to develop nutritionally improved oil seeds, drought tolerant rice and corn, a beta-carotene banana, high oleic and low linoleic acid ground nuts, blast-resistant rice, high yielding rice that is nitrogen and water use efficient and anthracnose (a fungal disease) resistant pepper.

China, the seventh largest growing of GMO crops, has, as indicated, recently taken measures to relax regulations of GMOs and gene-edited crops to encourage their development.

South Africa is the eight largest grower of GMO crops. It however has decided to regulate gene-edited crops as if they were GMOs which is likely to slow down their development.

Expectations on the part of scientists that the EU would adopt a more friendly attitude towards gene-edited crops were dashed by a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2018 that placed them under the same harsh regulatory procedures that have stifled the development of GMO crops. Many scientists were confounded by the ruling as it was contrary to the consensus of the scientific community that gene-editing is a safe and effective means of altering the DNA of a plant and thus did not require heavy handed regulation. The ECJ decision also went against the growing trend in the world of applying the same guidelines and standards to gene-edited crops that apply to conventionally grown crops.

Anti-GE organizations, which are highly influential in the EU, strongly applauded the decision. Greenpeace EUs food policy director, Franziska Achterberg, said

the courts ruling had prioritized the protection of human health and the environment. Releasing these new GMOs into the environment without proper safety measures is illegal and irresponsible, particularly given that gene-editing can lead to unintended side effects. The European commission and European governments must now ensure that all new GMOs are fully tested and labelled, and that any field trials are brought under GMO rules.

Recognizing the potential benefits of gene-editing for crops, the EU has recently tried to leave open the possibility of revisiting in the future a more favorable ruling for gene-edited crops. A May 2021 EU Commission report for example, recommended updating EU legislation to allow the use of gene-editing. The report noted that CRISPR can help make food production more sustainable, create plants that are resistant to diseases and hasher environmental conditions that may result from climate change and that do not require pesticides and fungicides.

From a practical standpoint however, it will be very difficult to change the regulation approval regime for gene-edited crops for a number of reasons.

In their party platform for the 2021 elections, the Green Party said, Our guiding principle is further developing ecological agriculture with its principles of animal justice, freedom from genetic engineering and freedom from chemical-synthetic pesticideswe want to advance the breeding of robust varieties and research into organic seeds, as well as strengthen research into alternative approaches that rely on traditional and organic breeding methods. With respect to old and new genetic engineering methods, the Greens pledged to adhere to a strict authorization procedure and the precautionary principle anchored in European law and called for continued binding labelling that protects GMO-free production and consumers freedom of choice. Accordingly, risk and detection research need to be strengthened.

The Social Democrats, who became the largest political party in Parliament in the 2021 election, ran on a platform of, We will continue to say no to genetically modified plants, while the Left party, which won 9.6% of the vote, adopted a platform that was anti-genetic engineering calling for a ban on the cultivation, trade and import of GMOs.

Antipathy to GE for crops is embedded in the German bureaucracy and as such will be very difficult to dislodge. The Federal Office for Nature Conservation, which is a division of the Environment Ministry, for example funds the Expert Office of Genetic Engineering and Environment, which is dominated by people who are opposed to genetic engineering and sympathetic to anti-GMO NGOS such as Testbiotech, Genethisches Netzwerk and Save our Seeds.

Testbiotech, one of the most influential anti-GE organizations in Germany, is opposed to gene-editing. A report paper put out by the group said,

The technical potential of New GE can be used to achieve profound changes in the biological characteristics of organisms without introducing any additional DNA sequences. These changes can exceed the range of characteristics developed gradually through evolution or previous breeding methods. It is obvious that specific risks are connected to these organismsRisks associated with the release or usage of the genetically engineered organisms for food production need to be thoroughly examined in every case. If strict regulation of New GE is not in place, the uncontrolled release of large numbers of organisms with characteristics not gradually developed through evolution can be expected within a short period of time. This would result in the substantial likelihood of damage to ecosystems, agriculture, forestry and food production. Without sufficient regulation of New GE, Testbiotech warns that severe damage to biological diversity is likely; risks to food production may be introduced and accumulate unnoticed; access to data needed for risk assessment by independent experts will not be made available; no measures can be taken against the uncontrolled spread of the organisms in the environment; no data will be available to track and trace the New GE organisms and products derived thereof; agriculture and food production relying on GE free sources can no longer be protected.

As Germany is the largest economy and the most populous nation in the EU, its opposition would make any change in the regulations of gene-editing virtually impossible.

Among the specific targets for 2030 are reducing the use of chemical pesticides by 50%, lowering fertilizer use by 20% and increasing the share of agricultural land devoted to organic farming to at least 25%. According to the farm to fork strategy report,

There is an urgent need to reduce dependency on pesticides and antimicrobials, reduce excess fertilization, increase organic farming, improve animal welfare, and reverse biodiversity loss.

It should be noted that the F2F strategy is not a specific piece of legislation but instead is an outline for a future food system. As a result, the strategy report was not accompanied by an environmental or economic impact statement nor was there any public consultation. Although the European Parliament did vote decisively in favor of the strategy in October 2021 with a majority of 452 of the 699 members, the vote had no legislative value.

By 2023, the European Commission is expected to present a proposal for a legislative framework for sustainable food systems that will set common definitions and requirements for all actors in the food system. There are 37 different measures in the strategy that range from avoiding marketing campaigns advertising meat at very low prices, supporting the reduced dependence on long-haul transportation to deliver food, developing an integrated nutrient management action plan to address nutrient pollution at the source and increase the sustainability of the livestock sector.

As can be expected, the F2F strategy was warmly welcomed by the organic food industry. The Organic Processing and Trade Association European President, Stefan Hipp, said,

We all know that we have to enhance our relationship with nature to fight climate change and restore biodiversity, quality of water and soil fertility. The organic sector has been fighting for these purposes for many years. I think for all pioneers in organic farming, processing and trading this Farm to Fork strategy is a recognition of the contribution they bring to the tables and plates across Europe.

Many of the assessments of the F2F have been highly critical because of concerns it would lead to reduced food production and drive-up food costs to consumers. Tim Cullinan, the President of the Irish Farmers Association, said,

the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies are unrealistic and will make European farming uncompetitiveIt is not credible for the EU to drive up production costs for European farmers while at the same time looking for low food prices. They want food produced to organic standards, but available at conventional prices.

The USDA performed a number of simulations on the impact of the F2F strategy and concluded, Under all these scenarios, we found that the proposed input reductions affect EU farmers by reducing their agricultural production by 7 to 12 percent and diminishing their competitiveness in both domestic and export markets. Moreover, we found that adoption of these strategies would have impacts that stretch beyond the EU, driving up worldwide food pricesWe estimate that the higher food prices under these scenarios would increase the number of food-insecure people in the worlds most vulnerable regions.

An analysis of F2F by Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands, noted that,

According to the assessment at macro level, the realization of the objectives of the F2F strategies will result in a decrease of the produced volumes per crop in the entire EU on average ranging from 10 to 20%. The production volume can decline up to 30% for some crops such as applesPrices of products such as wine, olives and hops will increase. By consequence, international trade will change significantly: EU exports were found to decline and EU imports will increase.

Potentially, the EUs F2F policy and its opposition to genetic engineering of food threatens to create a chasm of conflict between those countries, led by the US, who want to utilize new methods of biotechnology to grow food and those, mainly the EU, who do not. The US in this regard is determined not to allow the EU to set global agricultural standards which conflict with those of the US and not to allow F2F to become a barrier hindering US agricultural exports to the EU.

To counter F2F and the EUs anti GE stance, the US created the Coalition on Sustainable Productivity Growth for Food Security and Resource Conservation which includes Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Liberia, Mauritania, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of North Macedonia, Turkey, United States and Vietnam.

According to the Declaration of Support statement, We recognize that given tightening natural resource constraints, raising the productivity of existing natural resourcesis the only viable option to meet food security needs of current and future generations. Only through sustainable productivity growth can we meet the worlds growing nutrition needs without bankrupting farmers, consumers, and nature.

An article in Food Policy by Robert Paarlberg highlighted some of the difficulties that the EU will face in implementing its F2F policy. It said,

With its new Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, the EU plans to expand organic farming, an approach that rules out both synthetic chemicals and modern biotechnology, and it intends to use trade and assistance policies to pursue this strategy not just at home but also through Green Alliances abroad. The United States, by contrast, is emphasizing agricultural innovations based on the latest scienceincluding gene-editingand is now organizing with other countries a Coalition for Productivity Growth as a counter to European influence. Environmentalists in Europe believe their new vision is green, but on closer inspection it is not. If organic farming scaled up to replace 25 percent of conventional farming in Europe, much more land would have to be converted to food production, with damaging results for wildlife habitat and the climate. In its earlier rejection of GMOs, Europe caused environmental harm by foregoing options to cut insecticide use and adopt no-till practices. Europes regulatory example also discouraged the adoption of GMO food crops around the world. Europe is now inviting similar harms by classifying and regulating gene-edited crops as GMOs, but this most recent aversion to agricultural science is less likely to enjoy global influence.

The EU F2F policy may ultimately be derailed by the war in Ukraine which has made many of its goals impractical in the face of soaring prices for barley, corn, sunflower seeds and oil, wheat and fertilizers, which both Ukraine and Russia are major producers of. The EU obtains half of its corn from Ukraine, and a third of its fertilizers from Russia.

An article in the Financial Times in March noted,

The EU is reviewing the blocs sustainable food strategyBrussels agreed two years ago to reform its farm practices as part of a drive to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050. But Russias invasion of Ukraine has seen a drop in grain and fertilizer exports from those countries and raised concerns over food security. The blocs agriculture ministers meetto discuss both short-term measures to alleviate the risk of shortages and price rises and possible changes to its Farm to Fork sustainable food strategy. There is a desire to make sure that the objectives we have in our public policy are consistent with the need for food security...and sovereignty, said an EU diplomat. French president Emmanuel Macron said the sustainable food strategy was based on a pre-Ukraine war world and should be reviewed Copa-Cogeca, the EU farmers lobby group, has sent a list of demands to Janusz Wojciechowski, the European agriculture commissioner. A paradigm shift is needed...starting with the objectives, targets and timeline of the Farm to Fork strategyIt wants to increase fertilizer imports, pesticide use and cultivation of crops for animal feed while calling for opt-outs from ecological schemes and climate-linked animal welfare standards. Pekka Pesonen, secretary-general of Copa-Cogeca, said the best way to reduce carbon emissions was to increase productivity. He wants new technologies permitted that would allow gene editing to improve the output of animals and plants.

In the long-term, the EU position against genetic engineering is unsustainable because it will place European farmers at a severe disadvantage to farmers in other countries who will have the tools to create drought, disease, browning, disease and insect resistance and more nutritious and tastier crops. These crops will be far superior to the ones grown in the EU. Disease resistant GE crops for example will result in a huge cost savings in terms of waste and spoilage and substantially less fungicide use.

Paradoxically in this regard, Dutch and Irish scientists have created a cisgenesis potato resistant to late blight disease. It is unlikely though EU farmers will ever be able to cultivate the potato if the prevailing regulatory environment that strangles research and development of GE crop persists. They will also not be able to take advantage of research that is likely to lead to wheat resistant to wheat rust, tomatoes resistant to powdery mildew, apples resistant to fire blight and grapes resistant to powdery mildew.

An article in Trends in Plant Science, outlined the benefits that adopting GMO crops could bring to Europe. It said,

Genetically modified (GM) crops can help reduce agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition to possible decreases in production emissions, GM yield gains also mitigate land-use change and related emissions. Wider adoption of already-existing GM crops in Europe could result in a reduction equivalent to 7.5% of the total agricultural GHG emissions of Europe. The public debate about GM crops and new genomic breeding technologies remains contentious, especially in Europe. Critics focus primarily on hypothetical risks, while ignoring actual and potential benefits. Various reviews of the scientific literature show that the adoption of GM crops leads to economic, environmental, and health benefits through higher crop yields, higher farm profits, and, in some cases, lower chemical pesticide use. A few studies also show that certain GM crop applications help reduce GHG emissions and support carbon sequestration in the soil by facilitating reduced tillage farmingAs global demand for food production continues to grow, crop yield increases can reduce the need to add new land into production, thus preventing additional CO2 emissions from land-use change.

Garlich von Essen, the Secretary-General of the European Seed Association, has warned that if the EU does not alter its stance on genetic engineering of crops, EU based crop breeding companies will be compelled to relocate their advanced breeding programs to more friendlier countries in order to remain at the cutting edge of technology, attract the best breeders and develop the advanced plant varieties we all want to see. He also said farmers in the EU expect

the EU Commission to give them access to the same innovative tools as their competitors in other parts of the worldThe pressure on the EU will be growing as more and more countries around the world take a different approach and will probably see the EUs approach as a protectionist one that blocks market access and trade.

By continuing to reject GE technology, the EU will make it more difficult for the EU to reach its farm sustainable goals and reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions as genetic engineering is an important tool in reaching those goals because disease resistant crops use much less fungicides, insect resistant crops use much less insecticides, crops that create their own nitrogen require much less fertilizers, drought resistant crops can survive warmer temperatures and browning resistant crops will cause much less waste. Genetic engineering will provide the tools to achieve many of the objectives the EU desires in agriculture but foregoing biotechnology will make it much more difficult to attain these goals.

On September 29, 2021, the UK government, relaxed regulations regarding research and development of gene-edited crops thereby freeing scientists from the straightjacket of restrictions and red tape that had stifled such research when the country was a member of the EU. In announcing the move, Environment Secretary, George Eustice, said,

Our departure from the EU has given us the opportunity to adopt a more scientific and proportionate approach to the way that we do things like the regulation of organisms produced by genetic technologies such as gene editing.

The government indicated that for now, GMO regulations will continue to apply where DNA from one species is transferred to another but such regulations will be reviewed more broadly in the future. It also indicated that it will strive to pass legislation in 2022 that will regulate gene-edited crops on the same basis as crops developed via traditional breeding methods, thereby allowing their commercialization.

As part of the move to deregulate crop biotechnology, effective the end of 2021, researchers who want to conduct field trials of gene-edited crops will no longer have to submit a risk assessment. This will reduce the costs of the trials. They still though will need to register their plans with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The relaxation of rules on gene-edited crops only applies to England while Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland will continue to maintain tight controls.

The scientific community warmly welcomed the change in regulations. Angela Karp, director and CEO of Rothamsted Research, which has conducted crop gene-editing research, applauded the move saying,

We very much welcome this important announcement that regulation of gene-edited crops for research and development will now be approached in an appropriate, evidence-based manner.

Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Gideon Henderson, said:

Gene editing is a powerful tool that will help us make plant breeding more efficient and precise by mimicking natural processes that currently take many years to complete. With the new rules now formally in place, scientists will be able to assess new crops in real-world conditions more easily. This will increase our ability to harness the potential of gene-editing to efficiently help grow plants that are more nutritious, beneficial to the environment, more resilient to climate change, and resistant to disease and pests.

Professor Nick Talbot, the executive director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, in Norwich, said,

We can achieve the outcomes of plant breeding which has been so successful in controlling diseases and improving yields but in a much more precise manner to produce nutritious crops requiring much lower fertilizer inputs and with greater resilience. We need innovation to help us escape from the chemical treadmill of current agriculture. In the face of the climate emergency, doing nothing is no longer an option.

As expected, opponents of crop genetic engineering and the organic industry denounced the government action. Liz ONeill, director of GM Freeze, said,

Genetic engineering whatever you choose to call it needs to be properly regulated. The government wants to swap the safety net of proper public protections for a hi-tech free-for-all but our food, our farms and the natural environment deserve better.

Joanna Lewis, the Director of Policy and Strategy at the Soil Association, said

gene editing was the wrong approach and the government should instead focus on helping farmers become more sustainable. What would help is a reversal of the lack of investment in agro-ecological, nature-friendly methods and farmer-led technology.

Dr Helen Wallace, of Genewatch, described the changes as a

weakening of standards meant to protect human health and the environmentPeople wont be fooled. GM crops are GM crops. Whether they are made with new or old techniques, they can lead to unintended consequences.

Although there has been no commercialization of gene-edited or GMO crops in the UK because of stifling EU regulations, UK scientists have conducted a great deal of research on genetically engineered plants which should expedite their commercialization when regulations and guidelines are further relaxed. Rothamsted Research, the Sainsbury Laboratory and the John Innes Centre have been in the forefront of that research.

Rothamsted Research is conducting field testing of gene-edited wheat that has a lower content of Asparagine, which can be converted to acrylamide, a toxin, when flour prepared from the grain is used to make food. Acrylamide is regarded as a probable cancer-causing agent. Reduced asparagine concentration in wheat grain could therefore lower the exposure of consumers to acrylamide, thus reducing the risk of cancer.

In conjunction with Yield 10 Bioscience of the US, Scientists at the Rothamsted Institute,have been able to genetically modify Camelina sativa, a relative of oil seed rape, to produce omega-3 which is normally sourced from fish oil. Field trials indicate the fish oil contains high levels of EPA and DHA, both of which are important ingredients of fish oils. They are highly beneficial to human health and are linked to improvements in blood lipid levels, reduced tendency for thrombosis, blood pressure and heart level improvements, improved vascular functions and helps with eye and joint health and infant development.

Scientists at the John Innes Centre have identified via gene-editing technology a gene in wheat that is responsible for 50% of the yield of the crop. This opens up the possibility of breeding high yield wheat varieties. In addition, gene-editing could introduce other variable traits to wheat such as resilience and disease resistance.

Gene-editing research on glucosinolate levels is being conducted on cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cabbage and kale at the John Innes Centre. Glucosinolates are believed to have health promoting effects, including anti-carcinogenic properties, promoting improved glucose control and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Increasing the levels glucosinolates via gene-editing techniques could as a result lead to the cultivation of more healthy vegetables.

In 2020, scientists at the John Innes Center were able to confer resistance to a deadly fungal disease by transferring genes from wheat into barley. Dr. Asyrak Hatta, said,

We have shown that wheat stem rust resistance genes work in barley which is something that has not been achieved by wide crosses between grass relatives. Given that we know that wheat resistance genes work in barley it is likely that barley resistance will also work in wheatThis might therefore expand the reservoir of resistance genes available to wheat for engineering resistance to its major diseases.

The Sainsbury Laboratory is conducting field trial of a cisgenic potato that is resistant to blight. The potato was developed by inserting a gene from a wild potato into the Maris Piers potato variety.

Researchers at the University of York have partnered with the Universidad Austral de Chile to genetically modify wheat plants by increasing the amount of a protein that control the growth rate thus producing grains that are up to 12% larger than conventional varieties.

Tropic Biosciences is a Norwich based company that develops high-performing commercial varieties of tropical crops which promote cultivation efficiencies, enhance consumer health, and improve sustainable environmental practices, using cutting edge genetic-editing technologies.

On November 4, 2021, the company received confirmation from the USDA that its gene-edited potato with reduced browning characteristics were determined to be exempt from regulations. This was the first regulatory approval of a crop developed by the company using its proprietary Gene-Editing Induced Gene Silencing technology. This technology is being utilized to develop valuable traits in coffee and rice and is being used to develop bananas that are resistant to Panama Disease.

While the measures taken by the British government to deregulate gene-editing are encouraging, full deregulation that will allow the commercialization of gene-edited crops faces several hurdles. First, there will be ferocious opposition from the anti-GE lobby and the organic food industry. Despite the scientific evidence indicating genetically engineered foods are safe for humans and animals and the environment, the forces against genetic engineering have learned the lesson that it is easier to scare people than to reassure them.

In response to the governments announcement of changes in the law for field trials for gene-edited crops, Pat Thomas, Director of Beyond GM said,

Theres a lot of techno optimism about what kind of gene-edited foods might materialize one day, eventually, in the fullness of timeThe reality is that after 35 years of use genetically engineered crops have not delivered much in terms of real value and they have largely been a distraction from more meaningful discussions about what kind of food system we want and need to transition toThere are no clear scientific criteria for deregulation and no plan to develop social, ethical or values-based criteria that will enrich and guide the approval process for genetically engineered plants.

Second, the issue of labelling gene-edited crops is likely to prove to be contentious. At present all foods that contain GMOs must be clearly labeled. Beyond GM and Slow Food have been lobbying supermarkets to refuse to sell unlabeled gene-edited food.

Third, although England is taking the lead on deregulating gene-edited crops, it does not necessarily mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will follow. With regard to Scotland, the ruling Scottish National Party has its eyes on another independence referendum and if it is successful its objective would be to join the EU. As a result, even though many in the scientific community are urging the Scottish government to follow England and deregulate gene-editing, this is unlikely to happen because if Scotland gains its independence it will have to follow EU regulations if it wants to become a member.

It may well ultimately be the case that each of the four nations comprising the UK will have a different regulatory regime. This will impose additional costs for food producers in terms of sale, transportation and tracing of food within the UK.

Fourth, there are fears in the farming community that by adopting gene-editing technology they could lose access to the EU market because of its antipathy to the technology.

Go here to read the rest:

How and why gene editing faces fewer global regulations than GMOs - Genetic Literacy Project

In recent years, the clean living trend that has its roots in the organic food movement has made clean a potent buzzword for an ever-increasing number of things we put in or near our bodies. First, there were clean beauty products, then clean cleaning products, and now clean weed. Its about to be everywhere in the Golden State and its a lot more than a Goop-ification-of-ganja marketing ploy.

So what, exactly, is clean weed? Why should you care about what chemicals may be in your pot products as long as they test below state-mandated levels? And finally, if you decide to board the chemical-free cannabis train, how do you find it on your local dispensary shelf? (Hint: Its not going to be labeled clean weed.)

If the whole notion of clean weed has you scratching your head and muttering, Dude, it comes from a plant, so how much cleaner can it be, think of it like fruit and vegetables grown with the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides versus those grown organically. And, just as organically grown and nonorganically grown produce can sit side by side in your local grocery store, cannabis grown with or without the help of chemicals is legally sold across California as long as it tests below state-mandated levels for a range of heavy metals, pesticides, mycotoxins and the like that might find their way into a living plant. Products with too high a level to be safe never make it to legal dispensary shelves.

Things get a little (OK, a lot) more complicated when you move into the world of cannabis concentrates (most popularly the viscous honey-like oils used in vaporizer cartridges) because the most common and efficient methods of separating the high-producing THC from the plant material use a chemical solvent often butane, sometimes carbon dioxide or ethanol that is later removed. When pressure is applied to the result, the gooey end product is called resin. As with cannabis flower, there are state-mandated limits to how much of these residual solvents can be in a product. (The limit for butane is 5,000 parts per million, for example.)

This process also can be accomplished without using any chemicals at all; solventless extraction uses a combination of mechanical agitation and changes in temperature to separate the plant from the party-starter. When pressure is applied, it becomes a gooey concentrate called rosin (as contrasted with resin above see what I mean by complicated?). Although solventless extraction has been around for a very long time (hash, a precursor to todays concentrates, has a history that stretches back thousands of years), it has enjoyed a surge of popularity much more recently.

Well get to why that is in a minute, but first lets address the elephant in the room (well, on the page, anyway): Is this so-called clean weed better than my run-of-the-mill (and apparently dirty) weed?

If these cannabis products in whole flower or concentrate form pass state-mandated testing regardless of what chemicals have been used along the way, then whats the big deal? The answer here is best understood by, once again, harking back to the roots of the clean-everything movement organic food, said Dr. Peter Grinspoon, a Boston-based physician, 25-year medical cannabis specialist and board member of Doctors for Cannabis Regulation.

He used the analogy of choosing organic fruit over nonorganic at the supermarket. The regular piece of fruit has a little bit of pesticide on it but at a level where if it gets through, the government says, This is not going to harm you, Grinspoon said. I havent seen any studies that show youre less likely to get cancer if you eat organic vegetables, but everybody thinks intuitively theyre healthier. And everybody will pay more for [them], and I think its sort of the same situation with weed.

In his opinion, clean weed cannabis products made without the use of such chemicals is hypothetically safer. But is it really safer? he added. Its never been proven that [youll] have less cancer, live longer, have fewer lung problems.

The seeds of todays clean-weed boom were sown back in 2019, when, just as Californias recreational cannabis market was entering its second year, a lung-injuring vaporizer crisis made just about anyone who vaped or manufactured anything that could be vaped take a good, hard look at what went into vaporizer cartridges.

Jetty Extracts introduced its solventless vape cartridge to market in December 2020, and it has since become the companys fastest-growing category, says co-founder and Chief Executive Ron Gershoni.

(Jetty Extracts)

That included the folks at Oakland-based Jetty Extracts, which had been in the (solvent-based) cannabis extraction business for nine years.

Wed been experimenting with solventless since 2016, said Jettys co-founder and Chief Executive Ron Gershoni. Mostly very small-scale stuff. But, around 2019, we made a very concerted effort that this was where the market was going and we wanted to be a big player in solventless.

Gershoni cited growing consumer preference for cleaner products generally and the vape crisis specifically as some of the driving factors, invoking a comparison to opting for organic produce in the supermarket. Everyone especially in California wants things that are cleaner, he said. Not just the finished product but the process itself. And there is no question that using solventless extraction is a cleaner process because you are not touching any solvent.

Nathan Cozzolino, co-founder of Rose Los Angeles, which exclusively uses flower rosin in its THC-infused, Turkish delight-style edibles, noticed a similar shift in consumer awareness in the years following his brands 2018 launch.

Edibles brand Rose Los Angeles, which launched in 2018, uses flower rosin, a cannabis concentrate made without the use of chemical solvents.

(Rose Los Angeles )

When we started, there was nobody except one other brand making solventless edibles, he said. And at the time people were like, Flower rosin is a ridiculous extract to use. Its not scalable. Youre wasting smokable flower. Its really expensive. ... And Id say pretty much 18 to 24 months later, almost every company in the space had transitioned at least some of their product line to [include] a solventless offering.

Before 2020, Cozzolino said, the term rosin was mostly a niche cannabis-industry buzzword. And the consumer definitely didnt know what it meant, he said.

A California company that stepped into the space more recently is San Francisco-based Pax. In February, after half a dozen years of putting other brands concentrated (and solvent-based) cannabis oil in its plug-and-puff Pax Era vape pods, Pax launched a line of fresh-pressed live rosin pods with natural diamonds that builds on its clean-weed pedigree. (Live means that the rosin was extracted from a freshly frozen plant, while diamonds are a crystalline form of concentrated THC.) The back of each package reads 100% cannabis, nothing added.

That move, said Pax Chief Operating Officer Steven Jung, was born out of consumer awareness. What we found through our research ... [is that consumers] may not have the exact concepts down, but when its presented to them, they very clearly will state: I want the cleanest, safest, highest-quality product I can get my hands on.

Pax, a company that made its name in the dry-herb vaporizer space, went big on clean weed with the launch of its fresh-pressed live rosin vaporizer cartridges, which hit the market in February 2022.

(Pax)

Collin Palmer, Paxs head of formulations (the guy who helped figure out how to get the live rosin into vapable form), added that the clean-weed movement is evolving much the way the clean-food movement did before it.

Think about how organic happened, Palmer said. First it was natural products, then organic became a buzzword. ... People have this need, psychologically, to understand what goes into their bodies and know that its good for them. I think rosin and live rosin speaks to and checks all the boxes for those individuals. It brings transparency to the process. We now know that theres nothing added here, and I think that brings a sense of security that wasnt really truly there with cannabis before.

The biggest reason clean weed is about to be everywhere, though, is that consumer demand has turned out to match if not exceed expectations. Jettys Gershoni said the company launched its first solventless vaporizer cartridge into the market in December 2020. A year and a half later, he considers the move a lifesaver.

Right now the market is down in California about 25% year-over-year, he said in a May interview. And were up about 25% year-over-year and that product solventless is by far our fastest-growing product. Its our No. 1 product, and were struggling to keep it in stock.

As you embark on your exploration of the soon-to-be-everywhere weed trend, here are five ways to get a better understanding of what youre buying.

1. Buy from a licensed dispensaryThis is the single most important step in ensuring you know whats in your weed. Thats because, to make it to the shelves of a licensed California dispensary, a batch of each product is required to have a certificate of analysis to back it up. Available via a brands website or, more frequently, via a QR code on the package itself, the COA will verify that the product has tested below the acceptable level of residual solvents, heavy metals and mycotoxins (usually indicated by the word pass). That assurance doesnt exist when buying from an unlicensed shop.

Alex LeVine, co-founder and chief executive of the 2-year-old, L.A.-based vape brand PodTones and a certifiable weed nerd, said there are clues that can be gleaned by digging into a COAs list of additional cannabinoids and terpenes.

Rosin almost always has CBG in it, he said, referring to the minor cannabinoid cannabigerol. LeVine explained that vape pens containing a chemically extracted distillate will contain THC but not the trace cannabinoid. Another clue its real rosin is that youll see a very large number of different terpenes detected in live rosin that you wont with [solvent-based] concentrates. (Terpenes are the naturally occurring volatile compounds that give different cannabis plants their distinct smell and taste.)

2. Read the label (carefully)Just as in the clean-beauty and clean-food space, finding clean weed means doing a lot of research and reading a lot of labels carefully. In an ideal world, finding chemical-free cannabis flower would be as easy as looking for the word organic somewhere on the package. Although that is not an option (because that term falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and marijuana remains illegal at the federal level), thanks to a new state program, California cannabis products certified to be comparable to organic can bear the designation OCal on their label. (As of last month, just 11 California cultivators have been OCal-certified.)

When it comes to concentrates and vaporizer cartridges, the words solventless or rosin are used industrywide to denote no chemicals were used (remember, if its called resin, that means a solvent was used). However, because noncannabis materials can (and often are) added to give rosin a vaporizable viscosity, youll need to dig deeper than that. Read the fine print carefully to find out what else might be in the mix. And look for additional language such as 100% cannabis, nothing added, which appears on Paxs new pods, or 100% cannabis rosin, which appears on PodTones packaging.

3. Engage your budtenderNo, budtenders are not doctors or chemists, but chances are theyve already summited the solventless-vape learning curve youre just starting to scale. Tell them specifically what youre looking for and what you want and dont want out of a vaporizable cannabis product. Use the word solventless. Ask them to parse confusing labels. Ask them hard questions. Part of their job is to help you make sense of it all.

4. Search out these productsBecause Jetty Extracts and Pax are bigger brands, youre likely to find their clean-weed offerings on a lot of dispensary shelves. While theyre both good starting points, there are two smaller locals that have been in the solventless space for a long time and are worth the effort to search for. One is Rose Los Angeles, which makes gourmet-level edibles using flower rosin. If you prefer to consume instead of combust your cannabis, the brand is a worthy option.

L.A.-based PodTones, which launched its single-use vaporizer pen in 2020, extracts its flower rosin without the use of solvents.

(PodTones)

The other is PodTones, whose founders early on cracked the code on how to put 100% live rosin concentrate in a single-use pen without using additional chemicals, to the delight of plant-loving weed heads everywhere. With no pods (despite its name) or plugs or other components to worry about, its an elegant, entry-level experience for the novice tiptoeing into the world of clean weed.

5. Wait a whileIf all that sounds daunting, the other option is to just wait and let the clean-weed movement reveal itself to you by gobbling up market share, which, by all accounts, its doing quickly. Right now, it represents just about 1% to 2% of the market. As technology grows and demand grows for these products, well see more and more shelf space allocated to this type of product, said Paxs Palmer.

And I truly believe as a hash maker that this will be 50% or around that of our products that we see on the shelf, he said. I think everyone eventually will have a solventless line. Its just inevitable.

Visit link:

Chemical-free weed is hot in L.A. Here's why. - Los Angeles Times