<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>건강과 대안 &#187; 콩</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chsc.or.kr/tag/%EC%BD%A9/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr</link>
	<description>연구공동체</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 01:34:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>ko-KR</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>[GMO] 미농무부 중견과학자 Don M. Huber 박사(퍼듀대 교수)의 유전자조작 콩 및 옥수수 병원체 경고</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4137</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4137#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[GMO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Don M. Huber  교수]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[경고]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[공개서한]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[라운드업 제초제]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[라운드업레디]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[몬산토]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[미농무부장관]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[옥수수]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[유전자조작식품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[콩]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[퍼듀대 교수이자 미 농무부(USDA) senior scientist인 Don M. Huber 박사가 2011년 초빌색 미 농무부장관에게 GM 콩과 옥수수(라운드업레디 콩과 옥수수)의 위험성에 대해 경고한 공개 서한입니다.라운드업레디의 유전자 또는 라운드업레디 그 [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>퍼듀대 교수이자 미 농무부(USDA) senior scientist인 Don M. Huber 박사가 2011년 초<BR>빌색 미 농무부장관에게 GM 콩과 옥수수(라운드업레디 콩과 옥수수)의 위험성에 대해 <BR>경고한 공개 서한입니다.<BR><BR>라운드업레디의 유전자 또는 라운드업레디 그 자체가 Don M. Huber 박사와 동료 과학자들이<BR>발견한 병원체의 promoter 또는 co-factor인 것 같다고 경고하고 있습니다.<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Don M. Huber 박사는 40년 동안 군대 기관과 교수로 재직한 과학자라고 하는데요&#8230;<BR>3만6천배의 전자현미경으로만 볼 수 있는 이 병원체는 중간 규모의 바이러스와 비슷한 <BR>크기라고 하며, 돼지의 위와 소와 돼지의 태반에 고농도로 축적되어 있는 것이 확인되었다고<BR>합니다. 이 병원체는 콩과 옥수수 등 식물의 급사증후군(sudden death syndrome;SDS)과<BR>관련이 있는 것으로 추정된다고 하며, 동물에서 유산이나 불임 등 생식기 관련 질환을<BR>유발하는 것으로 추정된다고 합니다. <BR><BR>출처 : <A href="http://vanshardware.com/2011/02/usda-scientist-declares-emergency-gm-soybeans-might-be-triggering-epidemic/">http://vanshardware.com/2011/02/usda-scientist-declares-emergency-gm-soybeans-might-be-triggering-epidemic/</A><BR><BR><BR><br />
<BLOCKQUOTE><br />
<P>January 16, 2011</P><br />
<P>Dear Secretary Vilsack:</P><br />
<P>A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!</P><br />
<P>This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.</P><br />
<P>We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.</P><br />
<P>For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.</P><br />
<P>A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:</P><br />
<P>Unique Physical Properties</P><br />
<P>This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.</P><br />
<P>Pathogen Location and Concentration</P><br />
<P>It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.</P><br />
<P>Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease</P><br />
<P>The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income—sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).</P><br />
<P>Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure</P><br />
<P>Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.</P><br />
<P>The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.</P><br />
<P>For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.</P><br />
<P>Recommendations</P><br />
<P>In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.</P><br />
<P>It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.</P><br />
<P>I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.</P><br />
<P>Sincerely,</P><br />
<P>COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber<BR>Emeritus Professor, Purdue University<BR>APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) </P></BLOCKQUOTE></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4137/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[GMO] 유전자조작 콩과 옥수수 혼합사료를 투여한 돼지의 장기 독성 연구</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4135</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4135#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[GMO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[돼지]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[옥수수]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[위]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[유전자조작 식품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[자궁]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[장기독성]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[콩]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[프랑스 칸 대학의 세라리니 교수팀이 실험용 쥐를 대상으로 GM 옥수수와 라운드업 제초제의장기 독성연구 결과를 발표한 데 이어&#8230; 호주와 미국의 학자들이 돼지를 대상으로 GM 옥수수와GM 콩의 장기 독성연구 결과를 [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>프랑스 칸 대학의 세라리니 교수팀이 실험용 쥐를 대상으로 GM 옥수수와 라운드업 제초제의<BR>장기 독성연구 결과를 발표한 데 이어&#8230; 호주와 미국의 학자들이 돼지를 대상으로 GM 옥수수와<BR>GM 콩의 장기 독성연구 결과를 발표했습니다. <BR><BR>이번 연구결과 GM 옥수수와 GM 콩을 혼합하여 투여한 돼지는 일반 사료를 투여한 돼지보다<BR>3배나 더 많은 비율로 심한 위염에&nbsp; 걸렸으며, 자궁의 무게도 25%나 더 무거운 것으로 <BR>나타났습니다. 심한 위염 증상은 특히 GM 사료를 투여한 수퇘지에서 4배나 더 많은 비율로 <BR>발생했습니다.<BR><BR>앞으로 이번 연구에 대한 과학계의 논란이 진행될 것으로 예상됩니다.<BR><BR>==============<BR><BR>유전자조작 콩과 옥수수 혼합사료를 투여한 돼지의 장기 독성 연구<BR><BR>젖을 뗀 새끼돼지 168마리를 각각 84마리씩 2개 집단으로 나누어서&nbsp;실험 집단은<BR>GM&nbsp; 콩과 옥수수를 혼합한 사료를 투여하고, 컨트롤 집단은 일반 콩과 옥수수 사료를<BR>160일(22.7주) 동안&nbsp; 투여함. 각 실험집단 84마리의 돼지는 암컷 44마리, 수컷 44마리로<BR>구성되었음.<BR><BR>(각주 : 이 기간은 현대 양돈농장에서 식육을 목적으로 사육하는 돼지의 평균 수명을 5~6개월<BR>을 고려한 것임. 돼지의 평균 수명은 15~20년 가량이기 때문에 단지 5~6개월의<BR>시험기간은 객관적으로는 중기 독성에 해당한다고 볼 수 있지만&#8230; 현대 양돈장에서 돼지의<BR>평균 수명이 5~6개월에 불과하므로 현실적으로는 돼지 전생애에 걸친 장기독성 연구라고<BR>볼 수 있음)<BR><BR>GM 옥수수는 double and triple-stacked varietie를 포함하고 있음.(stacked corn에 대해서는<BR>다음 사이트를 참고할 것.<BR>&nbsp;<A href="http://pafarmgirl.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/understanding-stacked-corn/">http://pafarmgirl.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/understanding-stacked-corn/</A>)<BR><BR>사료섭취량, 체중증가량, 치명률, 혈액화학수치 등을 측정함. 사후 부검을 통해 내장 장기의<BR>무게 및 병리소견을 살펴봄.<BR><BR>GM 사료를 섭취한 돼지와 일반 사료를 섭취한 돼지의 사료섭취량, 체중증가량, 치명률, <BR>혈액화학수치는 차이가 없었음.<BR><BR>GM 사료를 섭취한 왜지는 위장관 및 자궁에서 차이가 나타났음. <BR><BR>GM 사료를 섭취한 왜지는 일반 사료를 섭취한 돼지에 비해 자궁 무게가 25%나 더 무거웠음. <BR><BR>GM 사료를 섭취한 왜지의 32%에서 심한 위염 증상이 나타났음. 이는 일반 사료를 섭취한<BR>돼지의 12%에서 심한 위염 증상이 나타난 것과 비교해서 3배 정도 많은 심한 위염 증상이<BR>나타난 것임. 특히 GM 사료를 섭취한 암컷 돼지는 일반 사료를 섭취한 암컷 돼지와 비교할<BR>때 심한 위염 증상이 2.2배 더 많이 나타났으며, GM 사료를 섭취한 수컷 돼지는 일반 사료를<BR>섭취한 수컷 돼지와 비교할 때 GM 사료를 섭취한 4배 더 많이 나타났음.<BR><BR><br />
<H3>A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet</H3><br />
<P><BR>Judy A. Carman1,2*, Howard R. Vlieger3, Larry J. Ver Steeg4, Verlyn E.<BR>Sneller3, Garth W. Robinson5**, Catherine A. Clinch-Jones1, Julie I.<BR>Haynes6, John W. Edwards2<BR><BR>1 Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Kensington Park, SA, Australia.<BR>2 Health and the Environment, School of the Environment, Flinders University, Bedford<BR>Park, SA, Australia.<BR>3 Verity Farms, Maurice, Iowa, USA.<BR>4 Ana-Tech, Monroe, Wisconsin, USA.<BR>5 Sioux Center Veterinary Clinic, Sioux Center, Iowa, USA.<BR>6 School of Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.<BR>* Email: <A href="mailto:judycarman@ozemail.com.au">judycarman@ozemail.com.au</A>, <A href="mailto:judy.carman@flinders.edu.au">judy.carman@flinders.edu.au</A>.<BR>** Present: Robinson Veterinary Services PC, Sioux Centre, Iowa, USA.<BR><BR><A href="http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf">http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf</A>&nbsp;(원문 : 첨부파일)<BR><A href="http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/index.html">http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/index.html</A><BR><BR><BR>Abstract<BR>A significant number of genetically modified (GM) crops have been approved to enter<BR>human food and animal feed since 1996, including crops containing several GM genes<BR>&#8216;stacked&#8217; into the one plant. We randomised and fed isowean pigs (N=168) either a mixed<BR>GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet (N=84) or an equivalent non-GM diet (N=84) in a longterm<BR>toxicology study of 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from<BR>weaning to slaughter). Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each<BR>group. The GM corn contained double and triple-stacked varieties. Feed intake, weight<BR>gain, mortality and blood biochemistry were measured. Organ weights and pathology<BR>were determined post-mortem. There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and<BR>non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry<BR>measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs.<BR>GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed<BR>pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs<BR>compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was<BR>worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and<BR>GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).<BR>Key words: GMO, GM corn, GM soy, GM animal feed, toxicology, stomach inflammation,<BR>uterus weight.<BR><BR>====================<BR><BR>관련 기사<BR><BR>Study links genetically modified grain to stomach inflammation in pigs<BR><BR></P><br />
<P class=byline>By Carey Gillam</P><br />
<P><SPAN class=location>로이터 June 11</SPAN> | <SPAN class=timestamp><FONT color=#999999 size=2>Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:42pm EDT</FONT></SPAN> <BR><A href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/gmo-pigs-study-idUSL2N0EN0UR20130611?feedType=RSS&#038;virtualBrandChannel=11563">http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/gmo-pigs-study-idUSL2N0EN0UR20130611?feedType=RSS&#038;virtualBrandChannel=11563</A><BR><BR>&nbsp;(Reuters) &#8211; Pigs fed a diet of only genetically modified grain showed markedly higher stomach inflammation than pigs who dined on conventional feed, according to a new study by a team of Australian scientists and U.S. researchers.<SPAN id=midArticle_1></SPAN></P><br />
<P>The study adds to an intensifying public debate over the impact of genetically modified crops, which are widely used by U.S. and Latin American farmers and in many other countries around the world.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_2></SPAN><br />
<P>The study was published in the June issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems by researchers from <A title="Full coverage of Australia" href="http://www.reuters.com/places/australia" data-ls-seen="1" _onclick="Reuters.article.trackInlineLink(2)"><FONT color=#006e97>Australia</FONT></A> who worked with two veterinarians and a farmer in Iowa to study the U.S. pigs.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_3></SPAN><br />
<P>Lead researcher Judy Carman is an epidemiologist and biochemist and director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide, <SPAN class=mandelbrot_refrag><A class=mandelbrot_refrag href="http://www.reuters.com/places/australia?lc=int_mb_1001"><FONT color=#006e97>Australia</FONT></A></SPAN>.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_4></SPAN><br />
<P>The study was conducted over 22.7 weeks using 168 newly weaned pigs in a commercial U.S. piggery.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_5></SPAN><br />
<P>One group of 84 ate a diet that incorporated genetically modified (GM) soy and corn, and the other group of 84 pigs ate an equivalent non-GM diet. The corn and soy feed was obtained from commercial suppliers, the study said, and the pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. The pigs were then slaughtered roughly five months later and autopsied by veterinarians who were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_6></SPAN><br />
<P>Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_7></SPAN><br />
<P>But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation &#8211; 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_8></SPAN><br />
<P>The researchers said more long-term animal feeding studies need to be done.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_9></SPAN><br />
<P>Biotech seeds are genetically altered to grow into plants that tolerate treatments of herbicide and resist pests, making producing crops easier for farmers. Some critics have argued for years that the DNA changes made to the transgenic plants engineer novel proteins that can be causing the digestive problems in animals and possibly in humans.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_10></SPAN><br />
<P>The companies that develop these transgenic crops, using DNA from other bacteria and other species, assert they are more than proven safe over their use since 1996.</P><SPAN id=midArticle_11></SPAN><br />
<P>CropLife International, a global federation representing the plant science industry, said more than 150 scientific studies have been done on animals fed biotech crops and to date, there is not scientific evidence of any detrimental impact.</P></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4135/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[GMO] 상업적 GM 작물의 전 세계 현황 2012 (ISAAA)</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4062</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4062#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 14:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[GMO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISAAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[면화]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[미국]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[브라질]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[아르헨티나]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[옥수수]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[유전자조작식품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[콩]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4062</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012ISAAA Brief 44-2012http://www.isaaa.org/purchasepublications/itemdescription.asp?ItemType=BRIEFS&#038;Control=IB044-2012 Description: For the first time since the introduction of biotech/GM crops almost two decades ago, developing countries have grown [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><P><BR>Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012<BR><BR><STRONG>ISAAA Brief 44-2012<BR><BR><A href="http://www.isaaa.org/purchasepublications/itemdescription.asp?ItemType=BRIEFS&#038;Control=IB044-2012">http://www.isaaa.org/purchasepublications/itemdescription.asp?ItemType=BRIEFS&#038;Control=IB044-2012</A><BR><BR><br />
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width=588 border=0><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD class=style4 vAlign=top><STRONG>Description:</STRONG> For the first time since the introduction of biotech/GM crops almost two decades ago, developing countries have grown more hectares of biotech crops than industrialized countries, contributing to food security and further alleviating poverty in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions.</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD class=style4 vAlign=top><STRONG>Author:</STRONG> Clive James</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD class=style4 vAlign=top><STRONG>Published by:</STRONG> ISAAA</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD class=style4 vAlign=top><STRONG>Copyright:</STRONG> ISAAA</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD class=style4 vAlign=top><SPAN class=style4><STRONG>Correct citation:</STRONG> James, Clive. 2012. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012. ISAAA Brief No. 44. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.</SPAN></TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD class=style4 vAlign=top><STRONG>ISBN:</STRONG> 978-1-892456-53-2</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></STRONG></P><br />
<H1>ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Contents</H1><br />
<H2><STRONG>Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012</STRONG></H2><br />
<P><STRONG>List of Tables and Figures <BR>Highlights <BR>Executive Summary: A separate supplement to this Brief and accessible at http://www.isaaa.org<BR>Introduction <BR>Global Area of Biotech Crops in 2012 <BR>Distribution of Biotech Crops in Industrial and Developing Countries <BR>Distribution of Biotech Crops by Country </STRONG></P><br />
<BLOCKQUOTE><br />
<P>USA <BR>Brazil <BR>Argentina <BR>Canada <BR>India <BR>China <BR>Paraguay <BR>South Africa <BR>Pakistan <BR>Uruguay <BR>Bolivia <BR>Philippines <BR>Australia <BR>Burkina Faso <BR>Myanmar <BR>Mexico <BR>Spain <BR>Chile <BR>Colombia <BR>Honduras <BR>Sudan <BR>Portugal <BR>Czech Republic <BR>Cuba <BR>Egypt <BR>Costa Rica <BR>Romania <BR>Slovakia <BR>Poland <BR>European Union <BR>Africa </P></BLOCKQUOTE><br />
<P><STRONG>Distribution of Biotech Crops, by Crop </STRONG></P><br />
<BLOCKQUOTE><br />
<P>Biotech Soybean <BR>Biotech Maize <BR>Biotech Cotton <BR>Biotech Canola <BR>Biotech Alfalfa <BR>Other Biotech Crops </P></BLOCKQUOTE><br />
<P><STRONG>Distribution of Biotech Crops, by Trait <BR>Dominant Biotech Crops in 2012 <BR>Global Adoption of Biotech Soybean, Maize, Cotton, Canola <BR>The Global Value of the Biotech Crop Market <BR>Global Status of Regulatory Approvals <BR>Drought – The Most Important Constraint To Crop Productivity Globally – A Historical Perspective&nbsp; <BR>Progress in Achieving and Delivering Drought Tolerance in Maize &#8212; an Update <BR>Future Prospects, 2013 to 2015, the MDG year&nbsp; <BR>Closing Comments <BR>Acknowledgments <BR>References <BR>Appendices </STRONG></P><br />
<BLOCKQUOTE><br />
<P>Appendix 1:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Global Crop Protection Market <BR>Appendix 2:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Useful Tables and Charts on the International Seed Trade <BR>Appendix 3:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Deployment of Approved Bt Cotton Events/Hybrids/Variety by Companies/Institutions in India <BR>Appendix 4: &nbsp;&nbsp; Listing of Events, Bt Cotton Variety and Hybrids in India<BR><BR>==========<BR><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE><br />
<H1>ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Executive Summary </H1><br />
<H2><STRONG>Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012</STRONG></H2><br />
<H3><STRONG><EM>Biotech Crop hectares increased by an unprecedented 100-fold,</EM></STRONG><BR><STRONG><EM>from 1.7 million hectares in 1996, to 170 million hectares in 2012.</EM></STRONG></H3><br />
<H3><STRONG>Introduction</STRONG></H3><br />
<P>This Executive Summary focuses on the 2012 biotech crop highlights, which are presented and discussed in detail in ISAAA Brief 44, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012, and dedicated to the 1 billion poor and hungry people and their survival.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Biotech crops increase in 2012 for the 17th consecutive year</STRONG></P><br />
<P>A record 170.3 million hectares of biotech crops were grown globally in 2012, at an annual growth rate of 6%, up 10.3 million from 160 million hectares in 2011. 2012 was the 17th year of commercialization of biotech crops, 1996-2012, when growth continued after a remarkable 16 consecutive years of increases. </P><br />
<P><STRONG>Biotech crops fastest adopted crop technology </STRONG></P><br />
<P>2012 marked an unprecedented 100-fold increase in biotech crop hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 170 million hectares in 2012 – this makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history – the reason – it delivers benefits.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Millions of farmers elect to adopt biotech crops due to benefits they offer</STRONG></P><br />
<P>In the period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, adopted biotech crops at unprecedented rates. The most compelling and credible testimony to biotech crops is that during the 17 year period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, elected to make more than 100 million independent decisions to plant and replant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.5 billion hectares – an area 50% larger than the total land mass of the US or China – there is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology – biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits. The 2011 study conducted in Europe confirmed that biotech crops are safe.</P><STRONG><BR clear=all></STRONG><br />
<P><STRONG>28 countries grow biotech crops with the top ten each growing more than 1 million hectares </STRONG></P><br />
<P>Of the 28 countries which planted biotech crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries. This compares with 19 developing and 10 industrial in 2011. Thus there are three times as many developing countries growing biotech crops as there are industrial countries. See a listing of countries and hectarages in Table 1 and Figure 1. The top 10 countries each grew more than 1 million hectares providing a broad-based worldwide foundation for diversified growth in the future; in fact, the top nine each grew more than 2 million hectares. More than half the world’s population, 60% or ~4 billion people, live in the 28 countries planting biotech crops. </P><br />
<P><STRONG>Two new countries plant biotech crops and three countries did not offer biotech seed for purchase by farmers.</STRONG></P><br />
<P>Two new countries, Sudan (Bt cotton) and Cuba (Bt maize) planted biotech crops for the first time in 2012.&nbsp; Germany and Sweden could not plant the biotech potato, Amflora because it ceased to be marketed; Poland discontinued planting Bt maize because of regulation inconsistencies in the interpretation of the law on planting approval between the EU and Poland; the EU maintains that all necessary approvals are already in place for planting whereas Poland does not. In 2012, Sudan became the fourth country in Africa, after South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to commercialize a biotech crop – biotech Bt cotton. A total of 20,000 hectares were planted in both rainfed areas and irrigated schemes. About 10,000 farmers were the initial beneficiaries who have an average of about 1-2.5 hectares of land. In a landmark event Cuba joined the group of countries planting biotech crops in 2012. For the first time, farmers in Cuba grew 3,000 hectares of hybrid Bt maize in a “regulated commercialization” initiative in which farmers seek permission to grow biotech maize commercially. The initiative is part of an ecologically sustainable pesticide-free program featuring biotech maize hybrids and mycorrhizal additives. The Bt maize, with resistance to the major pest, fall armyworm, was developed by the Havana-based Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB).</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Over 17 million farmers benefit from biotech crops</STRONG> <BR><BR>In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew biotech crops – notably, over 90%, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Farmers are the masters of risk aversion and in 2012, 7.2 million small farmers in China and another 7.2 million small farmers in India, collectively planted a record ~15.0 million hectares of biotech crops. Bt cotton increased the income of farmers significantly by up to US$250 per hectare and also halved the number of insecticide sprays, thus reducing farmer exposure to pesticides.</P><br />
<P><STRONG><IMG height=690 alt="Table 1" src="http://www.isaaa.org/siteimages/resources/briefs/content/b44-clip_image002.jpg" width=574><BR clear=all><IMG height=658 alt="Figure 1" src="http://www.isaaa.org/siteimages/resources/briefs/content/b44-clip_image004.jpg" width=572></STRONG></P><br />
<P><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Developing countries plant more biotech crops than industrial countries</STRONG> <BR><BR>For the first time, developing countries grew more, 52% of global biotech crops in 2012 than industrial countries at 48%. This is contrary to the prediction of critics who, prior to the commercialization of the technology in 1996, prematurely declared that biotech crops were only for industrial countries and would never be accepted and adopted by developing countries. In 2012, the growth rate for biotech crops was at least three times as fast and five times as large in developing countries, at 11% or 8.7 million hectares, versus 3% or 1.6 million hectares in industrial countries. During the period 1996-2011 cumulative economic benefits were high in developing countries at US$49.6 billion compared to US$48.6 billion generated by industrial countries. For 2011 alone, economic benefits for developing countries were higher at US$10.1 billion compared with US$9.6 billion for developed countries for a total of US$19.7 billion.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Stacked traits occupied ~25% of the global 170 million hectares</STRONG> <BR><BR>Stacked traits are an important feature of biotech crops – 13 countries planted biotech crops with two or more traits in 2012. Encouragingly, 10 were developing countries. Around 43.7 million hectares equivalent to 26% of the 170 million hectares were stacked in 2012, up from 42.2 million hectares or 26% of the 160 million hectares in 2011.&nbsp; <BR><BR><STRONG>The 5 lead biotech developing countries are China, India, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa – they grew 46% of global biotech crops, and have ~40% of world population</STRONG></P><br />
<P>The five lead developing countries in biotech crops are China and India in Asia, Brazil and Argentina in Latin America, and South Africa on the continent of Africa, collectively grew 78.2 million hectares (46% of global) and together represent ~40% of the global population of 7 billion, which could reach 10.1 billion by 2100. Remarkably, Africa alone could escalate from 1 billion today (~15% of global) to a possible high of 3.6 billion (~35% of global) by the end of this century in 2100 – global food security, exacerbated by high and unaffordable food prices, is a formidable challenge to which biotech crops can contribute but are not a panacea.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Brazil, the engine of biotech crop growth</STRONG> <BR><BR>Brazil ranks second only to the USA in biotech crop hectarage in the world, with 36.6 million hectares, and emerging as a global leader in biotech crops. For the fourth consecutive year, Brazil was the engine of growth globally in 2012, increasing its hectarage of biotech crops more than any other country in the world – a record 6.3 million hectare increase, equivalent to an impressive year-over-year increase of 21%. Brazil grows 21% of the global hectarage of 170 million hectares and is consolidating its position by consistently closing the gap with the US. A fast track approval system allows Brazil to approve events in a timely manner. Brazil has already approved the first stacked soybean with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance for commercialization in 2013. Notably, EMBRAPA, a public sector institution, with an annual budget of ~US$1 billion, gained approval to commercialize a home-grown biotech virus resistant bean, (rice and beans are the staples of Latin America) developed entirely with its own resources, thus demonstrating its impressive technical capacity to <STRONG>develop</STRONG>, <STRONG>deliver and deploy</STRONG> a new state-of-the art biotech crop.</P><STRONG><BR clear=all></STRONG><br />
<P><STRONG>USA maintains leadership role and Canada grows record canola hectarage</STRONG></P><br />
<P>The US continued to be the lead producer of biotech crops globally with 69.5 million hectares, with an average adoption rate of ~90% across all biotech crops. Canada grew a record 8.4 million hectares of biotech canola at a record adoption rate of 97.5%.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>India and China continue to grow more Bt cotton </STRONG>&nbsp;</P><br />
<P>India cultivated a record 10.8 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 93%, whilst 7.2 million small resource poor farmers in China grew 4.0 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 80%, cultivating on average, 0.5 hectare per farmer. India enhanced farm income from Bt cotton by US$12.6 billion in the period 2002 to 2011 and US$3.2 billion in 2011 alone.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Progress in Africa</STRONG> <BR><BR>Africa continued to make progress with South Africa increasing its biotech area by a record 0.6 million hectares to reach 2.9 million hectares; Sudan joined South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to bring the total number of African biotech countries to four. In South Africa the hectarage occupied by biotech crops in 2012 continued to increase for the 15th consecutive season, driven mainly by increased hectarage under maize and soybeans. The estimated total biotech crop area in 2012 was 2.9 million hectares, compared with 2.3 million hectares in 2011/2012, an impressive 26% annual increase in area.<BR><BR><STRONG>Five EU countries planted a record 129,071 hectares of biotech Bt maize, up 13% from 2011. Spain was by far the largest adopter planting 90% of the total Bt maize hectarage in the EU. </STRONG></P><br />
<P>Five EU countries (Spain, Portugal, Czechia, Slovakia and Romania) planted a record 129,071 hectares of biotech Bt maize, a substantial 13% increase over 2011, with Spain growing 90%, equivalent to 116,307 hectares of the total Bt maize hectarage in the EU. Spain had a record adoption rate of 30%. The planned approval in 2014, subject to clearance of a new biotech potato named “Fortuna” resistant to late blight, (the most important disease of potatoes), is potentially an important product, that can meet EU policy and environmental needs to make potato production more sustainable by reducing heavy fungicide applications and decreasing production losses estimated at up to US$1.5 billion annually in the EU alone, and US$7.5 billon worldwide.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Biotech crops contribution to Food Security, Sustainability and Climate Change </STRONG></P><br />
<P>From 1996 to 2011, biotech crops contributed to Food Security, Sustainability and Climate Change by: increasing crop production valued at US$98.2 billion; providing a better environment, by saving 473 million kg a.i. of pesticides; in 2011 alone reducing CO2 emissions by 23.1 billion kg, equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road; conserving biodiversity by saving 108.7 million hectares of land; and helped alleviate poverty by helping >15.0 million small farmers, and their families totalling >50 million people,&nbsp; who are some of the poorest people in the world. Biotech crops are essential but are not a panacea and adherence to good farming practices such as rotations and resistance management, are a must for biotech crops as they are for conventional crops.&nbsp; </P><br />
<P><STRONG>Contribution of biotech crops to Sustainability </STRONG></P><br />
<P>Biotech crops are contributing to sustainability in the following five ways: </P><br />
<P>•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <STRONG>Contributing to food, feed and fiber security and self sufficiency, including more affordable food, by increasing productivity and economic benefits sustainably at the farmer level</STRONG></P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Economic gains at the farm level of ~US$98.2 billion were generated globally by biotech crops during the sixteen year period 1996 to 2011, of which 51% were due to reduced production costs (less ploughing, fewer pesticide sprays and less labor) and 49% due to substantial yield gains of 328 million tons. The corresponding figures for 2011 alone was 78% of the total gain due to increased yield (equivalent to 50.2 million tons), and 22% due to lower cost of production (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming).</P><br />
<P>•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <STRONG>Conserving biodiversity, biotech crops are a land saving technology</STRONG></P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Biotech crops are a land-saving technology, capable of higher productivity on the current 1.5 billion hectares of arable land, and thereby can help preclude deforestation and protect biodiversity in forests and in other in-situ biodiversity sanctuaries. Approximately 13 million hectares of biodiversity – rich tropical forests, are lost in developing countries annually. If the 328 million tons of additional food, feed and fiber produced by biotech crops during the period 1996 to 2011 had not been produced by biotech crops, an additional 108.7 million hectares (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming) of conventional crops would have been required to produce the same tonnage. Some of the additional 108.7 million hectares would probably have required fragile marginal lands, not suitable for crop production, to be ploughed, and for tropical forest, rich in biodiversity, to be felled to make way for slash and burn agriculture in developing countries, thereby destroying biodiversity.</P><br />
<P>• &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <STRONG>Contributing to the alleviation of poverty and hunger</STRONG></P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To-date, biotech cotton in developing countries such as China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bolivia, Burkina Faso and South Africa have already made a significant contribution to the income of >15 million small resource-poor farmers in 2012; this can be enhanced significantly in the remaining 3 years of the second decade of commercialization, 2013 to 2015 principally with biotech cotton and maize.</P><BR clear=all><br />
<P>•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <STRONG>Reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint</STRONG></P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conventional agriculture has impacted significantly on the environment, and biotechnology can be used to reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. Progress to-date includes: a significant reduction in pesticides; saving on fossil fuels; decreasing CO2 emissions through no/less ploughing; and conserving soil and moisture by optimizing the practice of no till through application of herbicide tolerance. The accumulative reduction in pesticides for the period 1996 to 2011 was estimated at 473 million kilograms (kgs) of active ingredient (a.i.), a saving of 8.9% in pesticides, which is equivalent to an 18.3% reduction in the associated environmental impact of pesticide use on these crops, as measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) – a composite measure based on the various factors contributing to the net environmental impact of an individual active ingredient. The corresponding data for 2011 alone was a reduction of 37 million kgs a.i. (equivalent to a saving of 8.5% in pesticides) and a reduction of 22.8% in EIQ (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming).</P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Increasing efficiency of water usage will have a major impact on conservation and availability of water globally. Seventy percent of fresh water is currently used by agriculture globally, and this is obviously not sustainable in the future as the population increases by almost 30% to over 9 billion by 2050. The first biotech maize hybrids with a degree of drought tolerance are expected to be commercialized by 2013 in the USA, and the first tropical drought tolerant biotech maize is expected by ~2017 for sub-Saharan Africa. Drought tolerance is expected to have a major impact on more sustainable cropping systems worldwide, particularly in developing countries, where drought is more prevalent and severe than industrial countries.</P><br />
<P>•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <STRONG>Helping mitigate climate change and reducing greenhouse gases</STRONG></P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The important and urgent concerns about the environment have implications for biotech crops, which contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gases and help mitigate climate change in two principal ways. First, permanent savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through reduced use of fossil-based fuels, associated with fewer insecticide and herbicide sprays; in 2011, this was an estimated saving of 1.9 billion kg of CO2, equivalent to reducing the number of cars on the roads by 0.8 million. Secondly, additional savings from conservation tillage (need for less or no ploughing facilitated by herbicide tolerant biotech crops) for biotech food, feed and fiber crops, led to an additional soil carbon sequestration equivalent in 2011 to 21.1 billion kg of CO2, or removing 9.4 million cars off the road. Thus in 2011, the combined permanent and additional savings through sequestration was equivalent to a saving of 23 billion kg of CO2 or removing 10.2 million cars from the road (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013, Forthcoming).&nbsp; </P><br />
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Droughts, floods, and temperature changes are predicted to become more prevalent and more severe as we face the new challenges associated with climate change, and hence, there will be a need for faster crop improvement programs to develop varieties and hybrids that are well adapted to more rapid changes in climatic conditions. Several biotech crop tools, including tissue culture, diagnostics, genomics, molecular marker-assisted selection (MAS) and biotech crops can be used collectively for ‘speeding the breeding’ and help mitigate the effects of climate change. Biotech crops are already contributing to reducing CO2 emissions by precluding the need for ploughing a significant portion of cropped land, conserving soil, and particularly moisture, and reducing pesticide spraying as well as sequestering CO2.</P><br />
<P>In summary, collectively the above five thrusts have already demonstrated the capacity of biotech crops to contribute to sustainability in a significant manner and for mitigating the formidable challenges associated with climate change and global warming; and the potential for the future is enormous. Biotech crops can increase productivity and income significantly, and hence, can serve as an engine of rural economic growth that can contribute to the alleviation of poverty for the world’s small and resource-poor farmers.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Regulation of biotech crops</STRONG></P><br />
<P>The lack of appropriate, science-based and cost/time-effective regulatory systems continues to be the major constraint to adoption. <U>Responsible, rigorous but not onerous,</U> regulation is needed for small and poor developing countries. It is noteworthy, that on 6 November 2012, in California, USA, voters defeated Proposition 37, the proposed state petition on “Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative” – the final result was No 53.7% and Yes 46.3%.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Status of approved events for biotech crops </STRONG></P><br />
<P>While 28 countries planted commercialized biotech crops in 2012, an additional 31 countries totalling 59 have granted regulatory approvals for biotech crops for import, food and feed use and for release into the environment since 1996. A total of 2,497 regulatory approvals involving 25 GM crops and 319 GM events have been issued by competent authorities in 59 countries, of which 1,129 are for food use (direct use or processing), 813 are for feed use (direct use or processing) and 555 are for planting or release into the environment. Of the 59 countries with regulatory approvals, USA has the most number of events approved (196), followed by Japan (182), Canada (131), Mexico (122), Australia (92), South Korea (86), New Zealand (81), European Union (67 including approvals that have expired or under renewal process), Philippines (64), Taiwan (52) and South Africa (49). Maize has the most number of approved events (121 events in 23 countries), followed by cotton (48 events in 19 countries), potato (31 events in 10 countries), canola (30 events in 12 countries) and soybean (22 events in 24 countries). The event that has received the most number of regulatory approvals is the herbicide tolerant maize event NK603 (50 approvals in 22 countries + EU-27), followed by the herbicide tolerant soybean event GTS-40-3-2 (48 approvals in 24 countries + EU-27), insect resistant maize event MON810 (47 approvals in 22 countries + EU-27), insect resistant maize event Bt11 (43 approvals in 20 countries + EU-27), insect resistant cotton event MON531 (36 approvals in 17 countries + EU-27) and insect resistant cotton event MON1445 (31 approvals in 14 countries + EU-27). </P><br />
<P><STRONG>Global value of biotech seed alone was ~US$15 billion in 2012</STRONG></P><br />
<P>Global value of biotech seed alone was ~US$15 billion in 2012. A 2011 study estimated that the cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new biotech crop/trait is ~US$135 million. In 2012, the global market value of biotech crops, estimated by Cropnosis, was US$14.84 billion, (up from US$13.35 billion in 2011); this represents 23% of the US$64.62 billion global crop protection market in 2012, and 35% of the ~US$34 billion commercial seed market. The estimated global farm-gate revenues of the harvested commercial “end product” (the biotech grain and other harvested products) is more than ten times greater than the value of the biotech seed alone.</P><br />
<H3><STRONG>Future Prospects</STRONG></H3><br />
<P>Future prospects up to the MDG year of 2015 and beyond look encouraging. Several new developing countries are expected to plant biotech crops before 2015 led by Asia, and there is cautious optimism that Africa will be well-represented: the first biotech based drought tolerant maize planned for release in North America in 2013 and in Africa by ~2017; the first stacked soybean tolerant to herbicide and insect resistant will be planted in Brazil in 2013; subject to regulatory approval, Golden Rice could be released in the Philippines in 2013/2014; drought tolerant sugarcane is a possible candidate in Indonesia, and biotech maize in China with a potential of ~30 million hectares and for the future biotech rice which has an enormous potential to benefit up to 1 billion poor people in rice households in Asia alone. Biotech crops, whilst not a panacea, have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the 2015 MDG goal of cutting poverty in half, by optimizing crop productivity, which can be expedited by public-private sector partnerships, such as the WEMA project, supported in poor developing countries by the new generation of philanthropic foundations, such as the Gates and Buffet foundations. Observers are cautiously optimistic about the future with more modest annual gains predicted because of the already high rate of adoption in all the principal crops in mature markets in both developing and industrial countries. </P><br />
<P><STRONG>Drought in the USA in 2012</STRONG></P><br />
<P>The worst drought in 50 years impacted on crop production in the USA in 2012. The drought was estimated to have affected 26 of the 52 states, and covered at least 55% of the land area of the USA, which is almost 1 billion hectares. In comparison, the more severe Dust Bowl drought of 1934 covered almost 80% of the US land area. By the end of July 2012, drought and extreme heat had affected more than 1,000 counties in 29 states and they were designated natural disaster counties by USDA. As of July 2012, compared with the average year, 38% of the US maize crop had already been rated as poor and similarly 30% of soybean was rated poor. Given that the maize crop is the most important in the US valued at US$76.5 billion in 2011, losses for 2012 are expected to be substantial. The drought in Texas alone in 2011 was estimated to have cost US$7.6 billion and final losses for the drought of 2012 are likely to be much higher. Since US maize and US soybean exports represent 53% and 43% of global maize and soybean exports, respectively, the impact of the 2012 drought on international prices are likely to be significant. There is some comfort in the fact that global rice and wheat supplies were relatively plentiful in 2012 and the hope is that they will preclude a broad escalation of commodity prices as was the case in mid-2008. Maize is more vulnerable than soybean to price escalation because the shortfall in maize production could be exacerbated by the demand for maize for biofuel production in the US.</P><br />
<P>Some preliminary advance estimates in July 2012 suggested that losses in the US soybean and maize area affected by drought could be as high as 30%, but reliable estimates will not be available until later. Some of the most recent estimates indicate that compared with 2011 yields the average for 2012 will be 21% less for maize and 12% less for soybeans. Preliminary estimates by USDA suggested that the 2012 drought would result in increases in food prices of 3 to 4% in 2013, with beef prices increasing by 4 to 5%.&nbsp; </P><br />
<P><STRONG>First biotech drought tolerant maize to be deployed in the US in 2013</STRONG></P><br />
<P>Drought tolerance conferred through biotech crops is viewed as the most important trait that will be commercialized in the second decade of commercialization, 2006 to 2015, and beyond, because it is, by far, the single most important constraint to increased productivity for crops worldwide. The first and most advanced drought tolerant biotech/transgenic maize, will be launched commercially by Monsanto in the USA in 2013. Notably, the same technology, has been donated by the technology developers, Monsanto and BASF, to a Private/Public sector partnership (WEMA) which hopes to release the first biotech drought tolerant maize as early as 2017 in sub-Saharan Africa where the need for drought tolerance is greatest.</P><br />
<P><STRONG>Global review of drought tolerance</STRONG></P><br />
<P>Given the pivotal importance of drought tolerance, ISAAA invited Dr. Greg O. Edmeades, former leader of the maize drought program at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), to contribute a timely global overview on the status of drought tolerance in maize, in both conventional and biotech approaches, in the private and public sector, and to discuss future prospects in the near, mid and long term. The contribution by Dr. Edmeades, <STRONG><EM>“Progress in Achieving and Delivering Drought Tolerance in Maize &#8212; An Update”</EM></STRONG>, supported by key references, is included as a chapter in the full version of Brief 44, as well as an introductory chapter on drought to highlight the enormous global importance of the drought tolerance trait, which virtually no crop or farmer in the world can afford to be without.<STRONG></STRONG></P><br />
<H3>=================<BR><br />
<DIV id=contenttext><br />
<H1>ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Highlights</H1><br />
<H2><STRONG>Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012</STRONG><BR>By Clive James, Founder and Chair of ISAAA</H2><br />
<P><STRONG><EM>Dedicated by the author to the 1 billion poor and hungry people, and their survival</EM></STRONG></P><br />
<H3>Biotech Crop hectares increased by an unprecedented 100-fold from<BR>1.7 million hectares in 1996, to 170 million hectares in 2012</H3><br />
<P>A record 170.3 million hectares of biotech crops were grown globally in 2012, at an annual growth rate of 6%, up 10.3 million from 160 million hectares in 2011. </P><br />
<P>2012 marked an unprecedented 100-fold increase in biotech crop hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 170 million hectares in 2012 – this&nbsp; makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history – the reason – they deliver benefits.</P><br />
<P>In the period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, made more than 100 million independent decisions to plant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.5 billion hectares – 50% more than the land mass of the US or China; this demonstrates the trust and confidence of millions of risk-averse farmers in biotech crops which deliver sustainable and substantial, socioeconomic and environmental benefits.</P><br />
<P>Two new countries, Sudan (Bt cotton) and Cuba (Bt maize) planted for the first time in 2012. Germany and Sweden could not plant the potato “Amflora” because it ceased to be marketed; Poland discontinued planting Bt maize because of regulation constraints.</P><br />
<P>Of the 28 countries which planted biotech crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries; this compares with 19 developing and 10 industrial in 2011.&nbsp;&nbsp; </P><br />
<P>In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew biotech crops – remarkably over 90%, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Farmers are the masters of risk aversion and in 2012, a record 7.2 million small farmers in China and another 7.2 million in India, elected to plant almost 15 million hectares of Bt cotton, because of the significant benefits it offers.&nbsp; </P><br />
<P>For the first time, developing countries grew more, 52%, of global biotech crops in 2012 than industrial countries at 48%. In 2012, growth rate for biotech crops was at least three times as fast, and five times as large in developing countries, at 11% or 8.7 million hectares, versus 3% or 1.6 million hectares in industrial countries.&nbsp;&nbsp; </P><br />
<P>Stacked traits are an important feature – 13 countries planted biotech crops with two or more traits in 2012, and encouragingly, 10 of the 13 were developing countries – 43.7 million hectares, or more than a quarter, of the 170 million hectares were stacked in 2012.</P><br />
<P>Brazil, for the fourth consecutive year, was the engine of growth globally, increasing its hectarage of biotech crops more than any other country – an impressive record increase of 6.3 million hectares, up 21% from 2011, reaching 36.6 million hectares. </P><br />
<P>The US continued to be the lead country with 69.5 million hectares, with an average 90% adoption across all crops. Impact of US 2012 drought for maize was 21% loss in productivity and in soybean,12%. Canada had a record 8.4 million hectares of canola at a record 97.5% adoption.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </P><br />
<P>India grew a record 10.8 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 93%, whilst 7.2 million small resource-poor farmers in China grew 4.0 million hectares of Bt cotton with an adoption rate of 80%, cultivating on average 0.5 hectare per farmer. India enhanced farm income from Bt cotton by US$12.6 billion in the period 2002 to 2011 and US$3.2 billion in 2011 alone.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </P><br />
<P>Africa continued to make progress with South Africa increasing its biotech area by a record 0.6 million hectares to reach 2.9 million hectares; Sudan joined South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to bring the total number of African biotech countries to four.&nbsp; </P><br />
<P>Five EU countries planted a record 129,071 hectares of biotech Bt maize, up 13% from 2011. Spain led the EU with 116,307 hectares of Bt maize, up 20% from 2011.</P><br />
<P>From 1996 to 2011, biotech crops contributed to Food Security, Sustainability and Climate Change by: increasing crop production valued at US$98.2 billion; providing a better environment, by saving 473 million kg a.i. of pesticides; in 2011 alone reducing CO2 emissions by 23.1 billion kg, equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road; conserving biodiversity by saving 108.7 million hectares of land; and helped alleviate poverty by helping >15.0 million small farmers and their families totalling >50 million people, who are some of the poorest people in the world. Biotech crops are essential but are not a panacea and adherence to good farming practices such as rotations and resistance management, are a must for biotech crops as they are for conventional crops.</P><br />
<P>The lack of appropriate, science-based and cost/time-effective regulatory systems continue to be the major constraint to adoption. <U>Responsible, rigorous but not onerous,</U> regulation is needed for small and poor developing countries.</P><br />
<P>Global value of biotech seed alone was valued at ~US$15 billion in 2012.</P><br />
<P><U>Future Prospects</U> &#8211; cautiously optimistic with more modest annual gains predicted because of the already high rate of adoption in all the principal crops in mature markets in both developing and industrial countries.<BR></P></DIV></H3></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=4062/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[식량위기] 기후변화는 어떻게 식량 가격 상승에 영향을 미치나?</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3668</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3668#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[기후변화]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[가축]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[목화]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[밀]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식량위기]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품가격 상승]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[쌀]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[옥수수]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[콩]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Climate ChangeWhy Are Food Prices Rising? Check the Weather출처 : 블룸버그 비즈니스 위크By Ira Sager on January 10, 2013 http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/why-are-food-prices-rising-check-the-weather#r=nav-f-story기후변화는 어떻게 식량 가격 상승에 영향을&#160;미치나?번역 : http://newspeppermint.com/ 가뭄과 [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><P><FONT size=3>Climate Change<BR>Why Are Food Prices Rising? Check the Weather<BR><BR>출처 : 블룸버그 비즈니스 위크<BR>By Ira Sager on January 10, 2013 <BR><A href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/why-are-food-prices-rising-check-the-weather#r=nav-f-story">http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/why-are-food-prices-rising-check-the-weather#r=nav-f-story</A><BR><BR><A href="http://newspeppermint.com/2013/01/13/%ea%b8%b0%ed%9b%84%eb%b3%80%ed%99%94%eb%8a%94-%ec%96%b4%eb%96%bb%ea%b2%8c-%ec%8b%9d%eb%9f%89-%ea%b0%80%ea%b2%a9-%ec%83%81%ec%8a%b9%ec%97%90-%ec%98%81%ed%96%a5%ec%9d%84-%eb%af%b8%ec%b9%98%eb%82%98/">기후변화는 어떻게 식량 가격 상승에 영향을&nbsp;미치나?</A><BR><BR>번역 : <A href="http://newspeppermint.com/">http://newspeppermint.com/</A></P><br />
<P>가뭄과 홍수, 태풍과 허리케인&nbsp;등&nbsp;기상이변은 늘 농산물 수확에 큰 영향을 미쳐 왔습니다. 하지만 최근 지구 온난화와 같은 기후변화로 이러한 기상이변 현상의 빈도가 증가하면서 밀이나 쌀과 같은 곡식류 뿐만 아니라 과일과 야채, 그리고 육류와 &nbsp;가금류의 가격 상승에도 큰 영향을 미치고 있습니다. 다음 통계는 지난 3년간 기상 변화가 식량가격 변화에 미친 영향을 지역별, 나라별로 보여줍니다.</P><br />
<P>2010</P><br />
<P>1. 러시아: 극심한 가뭄 때문에&nbsp;러시아의 밀 생산이 25% 감소했고, 산불은 240만 에이커의 농지를 태워버렸습니다. 2010년 9월 밀의 가격은 7월에 비해 60~80% 상승했고 기상 이변으로 인한 추정 손실액은 14억 달러입니다.</P><br />
<P>2. 파키스탄: &nbsp;여름철 폭풍우는 최악의 홍수를&nbsp;일으켜 밀, 쌀, 목화 등을 생산하는 590만 에이커의 농지를 삼켜버렸습니다. 또 45만 마리의 가축이 홍수에 휩쓸렸고 추정 손실액은 총 29억 달러입니다.</P><br />
<P>3. &nbsp;아마존 강 유역: 심각한 가뭄은 아마존강의 주요 지류인 리오 네그로(Rio Negro)강 수위를 역사상 최저 수준으로 낮췄고 이는 콩 생산에 큰 타격을 입혔습니다.</P><br />
<P>4. 북부 아프리카: 2009년에 비해 밀 생산량이 18%나 하락했는데, 이는 모종을 심는 시기에 땅에 충분한 수분이 없었고, 5~9월에 모로코와 튀니지의 주요 밀 경작 지역에 불규칙하게 내린 비 때문입니다.</P><br />
<P>2011</P><br />
<P>1. 아프리카의 뿔지역: 동아프리카 지역에서 지속된 가뭄은 심각한 인명사고로 이어졌습니다. 특히 심각한 빈곤을 겪고 있는 남쪽 소말리아 지역에서는 수만 명이 목숨을 잃었습니다. 몇십 년 간 지속된 최악의 가뭄은 곡류 생산을 급격히 떨어뜨렸고 초목지를 감소시켰으며 이는 가축 수의 감소로 이어지는 결과를 낳았습니다. 이 지역에 투입된 원조(Aid)는 25억 달러 규모로 추정됩니다.</P><br />
<P>2. 태국: 7월부터 1월 사이의 폭풍우(Monsoon rain) 때문에&nbsp;대규모 홍수가 일어났고, 세계 최대의 쌀 수출국인 태국의 쌀 생산을 급격히 감소시켰습니다. 추정 피해액은 13억 달러입니다.</P><br />
<P>3. 미국 동부 연안/뉴잉글랜드 지역: 허리케인 아이린(Irene)은 전통적인 허리케인 피해지역이 아닌 중서부와 뉴잉글랜드를 강타하면서 강 유역의 범람을 유발시켰습니다. 이는 곡물 생산에 악영향을 미쳤고 추정 피해액은 74억 달러입니다.</P><br />
<P>4. 미국 중부/남부 평원 지역: 심각한 가뭄으로 2011년 미국의 밀 생산량이 급격히 하락했으며 추청 피해액은 200억 달러입니다.</P><br />
<P>2012</P><br />
<P>1. 사하라 지역: 서아프리카 여러 지역에서 농작물 생산량이 늦은 장마와 지속된 가뭄,그리고 심각한 해충 감염으로 피해를 봤습니다. 곡물류의 생산은 2010년에 비해 26% 감소했으며 1800만 명이 넘는 사람들이 긴급 구호를 요청했습니다. 예상 피해액은 16억 달러 입니다.</P><br />
<P>2. 미국 중서부: 심각한 가뭄은 콩과 옥수수 생산에 심각한 피해를 입혔습니다. 7월 말 기준으로 88%의 옥수수 생산지역과 87% 콩 생산 지역이 가뭄의 영향을 받았으며 미국 전 지역의 64%가 가뭄의 영향을 받았습니다. </P></FONT></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3668/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[공장형 축산] 곡물사료 급여와 O157 대장균</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3020</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3020#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cattle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Escherichia coli O157:H7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O157 대장균]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[곡물사료]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[공장형 축산]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[옥수수]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[콩]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3020</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[대장균은 장관 내에 1% 정도 정상적으로 존재하는 세균입니다. 공장식 농장에서 사육되고&#160;있는&#160;반추동물의 약30%는 병원성 대장균 O157:H7을 보균하고 있습니다. 공장식 농장에서는 사료효율을&#160; 높이기 위하여 고농도의 곡물사료를 급여하고 있지요. 옥수수 및 [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><P>대장균은 장관 내에 1% 정도 정상적으로 존재하는 세균입니다. 공장식 농장에서 사육되고&nbsp;있는&nbsp;<BR>반추동물의 약30%는 병원성 대장균 O157:H7을 보균하고 있습니다. 공장식 농장에서는 사료<BR>효율을&nbsp; 높이기 위하여 고농도의 곡물사료를 급여하고 있지요. 옥수수 및 콩 위주의 곡물사료 <BR>급여에 따라&nbsp; 가축들의 소화계(장관)에서 대장균이 득실거리는 환경을 조장하고 있습니다. <BR><BR>자세한 내용은 2009년 발표된 아래 논문은&nbsp;참고하세요. <BR></P><br />
<H1>Diet, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and cattle: a review after 10 years.</H1><br />
<DIV class=abstractcontentwrapper><br />
<DIV class=abstractcontent><br />
<DIV class=citation><SPAN class=citation><A title="More papers by Todd R Callaway" href="/search?q=authors%3A%22Todd R Callaway%22"><FONT color=#99aacc>Todd R Callaway</FONT></A>, <A title="More papers by M A Carr" href="/search?q=authors%3A%22M A Carr%22"><FONT color=#99aacc>M A Carr</FONT></A>, <A title="More papers by T S Edrington" href="/search?q=authors%3A%22T S Edrington%22"><FONT color=#99aacc>T S Edrington</FONT></A>, <A title="More papers by Robin C Anderson" href="/search?q=authors%3A%22Robin C Anderson%22"><FONT color=#99aacc>Robin C Anderson</FONT></A> and <A title="More papers by David J Nisbet" href="/search?q=authors%3A%22David J Nisbet%22"><FONT color=#99aacc>David J Nisbet</FONT></A> <SPAN class=citation><A class=journal title="Get latest issue" href="/search?q=latest%3ACurrent+issues+in+molecular+biology&#038;from=19351974"><FONT color=#99aacc>Curr Issues Mol Biol</FONT></A> <A class=journal title="Get volume 11, issue 2" href="/search?q=issn%3A1467-3037+vol%3A11+issue%3A2&#038;from=19351974"><FONT color=#99aacc><STRONG>11</STRONG>(2):67-79</FONT></A> (2009)</SPAN> PMID 19351974 l<BR><BR>Escherichia coli are commensal bacteria that can account for up to 1% of the bacterial population of the gut. Ruminant animals are reservoirs of the pathogenic bacteria E. colil strain O157:H7, and approximately 30% of feedlot cattle shed E. coli O157:H7. Feedlot and high-producing dairy cattle are fed high grain rations in order to increase feed efficiency. When cattle are fed high grain rations, some starch escapes ruminal microbial degradation and passes to the hindgut where it undergoes fermentation. Ten years ago researchers demonstrated that populations of total E. coli were higher in grain-fed than in forage-fed cattle, and when cattle were abruptly switched from a high grain diet to an all hay diet, total E. coli populations declined 1000-fold within 5 days and reduced the ability of the surviving E. coli to survive an acid shock mimicking passage through the human gastric stomach. This research provoked many questions about the effects of diet or E. coli O157:H7 populations that have not been conclusively answered to date. Subsequent research has shown that diet does affect E. coli O157:H7 populations, but the effects have varied in magnitude and impact. Further studies have demonstrated that the effects of forage feeding on E. coli O157:H7 populations may be due to concentrations of tannins and phenolic acids in forages. Other ration components such as rapidly ruminally fermented grains (e.g., barley) increase the shedding of E. coli O157:H7, and in some situations, feeding distillers grains can increase fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7 due to VFA concentrations. Data from researchers across North America indicate that diet does impact STEC/EHEC populations in cattle prior to slaughter; however the economic, logistic and practical impacts of dietary changes must be examined and accounted for. <BR><BR></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=3020/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>[식량위기] 당신의 밥상을 노리는 투기자본</title>
		<link>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2253</link>
		<comments>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2253#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>건강과대안</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[기업감시]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식품 · 의약품]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LDC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[곡물대란]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[곡물메이저]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[밀]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[벙기]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식량위기]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[식량주권]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[애그플레이션]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[옥수수]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[카길·ADM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[콩]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[투기자본]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[당신의 밥상을 노리는 투기자본 곡물 시장의 구조 변화가 시작됐다. 2000년대 들어 IT 버블이 꺼지고 금융 시장이 불안해지자 먹잇감을 찾던 투기자금들이 대거 원자재 시장으로 유입되면서 식량 위기를 초래하고 있다. [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><P><br />
<TABLE id=ArtView border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=640><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD><br />
<TABLE class=backgr border=0 cellSpacing=10 cellPadding=0 width="100%" height=80><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD id=font_title class=title>당신의 밥상을 노리는 투기자본 <!--/DAUM_TITLE--></TD><br />
<TD align=right><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD id=font_subtitle class=sub>곡물 시장의 구조 변화가 시작됐다. 2000년대 들어 IT 버블이 꺼지고 금융 시장이 불안해지자 먹잇감을 찾던 투기자금들이 대거 원자재 시장으로 유입되면서 식량 위기를 초래하고 있다.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD bgColor=#c0c0c0 height=1></TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 7px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 9px"><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD id=font_date class=WrtTip><SPAN class=SmN>시사인[154호] 2010.08.31&nbsp;&nbsp;09:53:49</SPAN></TD><br />
<TD style="WIDTH: 300px" id=font_email class=SmN align=right>박형숙 기자 | <SPAN class=SmN><A href="http://www.chsc.or.kr/xe/mailto.html?mail=phs@sisain.co.kr">http://www.chsc.or.kr/xe/mailto.html?mail=phs@sisain.co.kr</A></SPAN>&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><A href="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=8234">http://www.sisainlive.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=8234</A><BR></P><br />
<TABLE id=ArtView border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=640><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD align=middle><br />
<TABLE id=ArtView border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=640 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD id=articleBody class=content><br />
<DIV class=articleBody><br />
<DIV id=CmAdContent>“2년 전과 지금은 다르다.” 우리 정부와 미국의 판단이다. 최근 러시아발 곡물대란 우려가 나오고 있지만, 2007∼2008년 곡물 수출국들이 수출을 금지·제한하면서 밀·콩·옥수수 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID2 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC00%uACA9',event, 'KL_POP_ID2');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>가격</A>이 두세 배씩 뛰고 동남아 등지에서 폭동이 일어났던 ‘글로벌 애그플레이션’ <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID4 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC00%uB2A5',event, 'KL_POP_ID4');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>가능</A>성은 낮다는 얘기다. 사실 수급을 놓고 보자면 크게 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID11 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC71%uC815',event, 'KL_POP_ID11');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>걱정</A>할 상황은 아니다. 현재 세계 밀 재고율은 26%로 2년 전(20%)보다 높고, 세계 밀 수출의 14%를 담당하는 러시아가 수출금지 조처를 취했지만 최대 수출국인 미국(18%)이 세계 모든 결손을 채우기에 충분한 생산 전망을 내놓으면서 시장에 비교적 안전 신호를 보내기 때문이다. 다만 미국 농무부 장관은 “우리가 이익을 챙길 수 있는 기회다”라며 입이 벌어졌을 뿐이다. 또한 밀은 다른 곡물과 달리 특정 국가에 의존하지 않고 EU·캐나다·호주 등으로 세계 교역 물량이 골고루 분산되어 있어 위험성은 낮은 편이다. 그런데도 6월 초부터 8월 초까지 두 달 동안 밀 가격은 60% 이상 폭등했다. ‘비밀’은 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID8 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC70%uAE30',event, 'KL_POP_ID8');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>거기</A>에 있다. <BR><BR><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=540 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16562_1639.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16562 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=540 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16566_1639.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16566 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=540 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16565_1639.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16565 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=540 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16561_164.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16561 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=540 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16563_1639.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16563 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>삼성선물의 임호상 연구원은 “투기 요인이 크다”라고 말했다. 그러면서 지난 6월 초부터 밀 가격의 상승을 기대한 투기세력들이 대대적인 매수를 시작하면서 가격 상승을 주도했다고 분석했다. 시세 차익을 노린 ‘핫머니’가 곡물시장에 유입되었기 때문이라는 얘기다. 러시아가 수출금지령을 발표(8월5일)하기 두 달 전부터 이미 투기세력들은 정보력을 발휘해 뛰기 시작했던 것이다. 세계 식량시장을 쥐락펴락하는 곡물 메이저들이 러시아 정부에 엄청난 로비를 해댔다는 루머는 시장 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID9 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC70%uB798',event, 'KL_POP_ID9');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>거래</A>자들 사이에서 이미 통설이다. 러시아로서는 일거양득이었다. 수출금지령이 내려지면 이전 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID15 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uACC4%uC57D',event, 'KL_POP_ID15');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>계약</A>을 취소하고 가격을 다시 올려 받을 수 있으니 좋고, 국내적으로는 수급 안정에 기여해 여론을 다독일 수 있었다. <BR><BR>러시아와 달리 ‘서방 눈치’를 봐야 하는 우크라이나는 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID17 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uACF5%uC2DD%uC801',event, 'KL_POP_ID17');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>공식적</A>인 수출제한 조처 발표를 8월 말로 미루기는 했지만 사실상 한 달 전부터 수출 제한 상태였다는 게 수입업자들 얘기다. 수출 라이선스나 입출항 허가서 발급을 미적거린다든지 곡물을 실어 나르기 위한 철도나 차량 운송을 금지한다든지 하는 식으로 말이다. <BR><BR><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=290 align=left><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16564_1639.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16564 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>몸값이 뛴 미국은 이미 북새통이다. 국내 사료 물량의 3분의 1을 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID16 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uACF5%uAE09',event, 'KL_POP_ID16');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>공급</A>하고 있는 농협사료의 이태웅 외자구매부 차장은 “미국의 사료용 밀 가격이 40~50% 올랐다고 하지만 사실상 가격이 없다는 편이 맞는 말이다. 살 수가 없다”라고 말했다. 미국 내 수출 엘리베이터(곡물의 저장·선별·유통 설비)가 꽉 차서 수요가 있어도 실어 나를 수 없고, 유통비용인 ‘베이시스’(수송비·반출입비·보관료·금리·보험료 등)도 100%가량 뛰었다고 한다. 다행히 우리나라의 경우 선행구매분이 6개월치 확보되어 있어 당장 소비자물가에 반영되지는 않겠지만 현재 곡물시장의 가격 상승분은 올해 말, 내년 초에 반영될 공산이 크다.&nbsp; <BR><BR><STRONG>폭발물에 기름을 붓다</STRONG><BR><BR>식량부족 사태는 ‘온갖 요소가 집약된 재난’이다. 이미 곡물시장은 엄청난 폭발력을 지니고 있다. 이는 곧 투기가 발흥하기에는 더없이 좋은 토양이라는 말과도 상통한다. <BR><BR>기본적으로 곡물은 필수 재화이기 때문에 자국 내 소비가 먼저다. 따라서 일반 상품과 달리 교역량의 비중이 낮다. 중국이 전 세계 최대 곡물 생산국이지만 수입국 처지인 게 바로 그렇다. 자동차의 소비량 대비 무역량은 44%이지만 밀과 옥수수 등의 국제 교역량은 10%대에 불과하다. 특히 쌀이 심한데 5∼7% 수준이다(옥수수와 밀은 거의 100% 수입하는 우리나라가 쌀만은 자급하고 있어 얼마나 다행인가). 생산과 소비에 작은 교란 요인이 발생해도 가격이 크게 요동치는 곡물시장을 그래서 ‘얇은 시장(thin market)’이라 부른다. 곡물은 또한 공산품처럼 비싸다고 소비를 미루거나 줄일 수 있는 품목이 아니기 때문에 수요탄력성도 매우 낮다. 여기에 더해 4대 곡물 메이저 회사(카길·ADM·벙기·LDC)가 세계 곡물 교역량의 80%를 장악하고 있어 식량은 이미 ‘무기화’된 상황이다. <BR><BR>그나마 완충 구실을 해왔던 건 재고율이었다. 흉작과 같은 공급의 불안정한 요소가 발생하더라도 재고가 일정하게 유지되고 있다면 가격 파동을 누를 수 있었다. 그런데 2000년대 들어 지속적으로 재고율이 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID6 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC10%uC18C',event, 'KL_POP_ID6');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>감소</A>했다. 그전까지만 해도 25%를 상회해왔지만 2003년에는 18%로 뚝 떨어졌다. 중국과 인도의 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID13 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uACBD%uC81C%uC131',event, 'KL_POP_ID13');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>경제성</A>장과 소비패턴이 달라지면서 곡물 수요가 급증한 이유도 있지만 옥수수 등을 연료로 쓰는 이른바 바이오 연료의 증가가 결정타였다. 식량위기를 초래했던 2008년 곡물가 상승의 75%가 바이오 연료 때문이었다는 세계은행 비밀 보고서가 폭로되면서 추측은 사실로 굳어졌다. <BR><BR>워낙 취약한 곡물시장을 투기꾼들의 ‘난장’으로 만든 건 부시 미국 대통령이다. 2007년 부시 대통령은 바이오 에탄올 등 재생가능연료를 앞으로 10년 안에 지속적으로 늘려 자동차용 가솔린 소비량을 20%가량 줄이는 ‘20 in 10’ 계획을 발표했다. 옥수수 가격은 급등했고 다른 곡물들도 연쇄적으로 반응했다. 미국뿐 아니었다. 이미 중국도 2000년대 들어서면서 과잉재고 처리 목적으로 바이오 연료 생산을 늘렸고 유럽연합이나 브라질 등 남미 곡물 수출국도 가세했다. 에너지와 곡물의 결합을 통해 곡물의 공급이 과잉에서 부족으로 전환되는 곡물시장의 구조적 변화가 시작된 것이다. 2000년대 초반 이후 지속된 글로벌 유동성이 빠르게 증가하면서 먹잇감을 찾던 금융자금이 유입되기에 좋은 조건이 형성된 것이다. <BR><STRONG><BR>실수요자까지 가담한 거대한 투기 사슬<BR></STRONG><BR>“2001년 정보기술(IT) 버블 붕괴 이후 금융시장이 불안해지자 금융 투자자들은 포트폴리오를 다변화하기 시작했다. 안정적 수익원으로 찾아낸 것이 원유·금·곡물과 같은 원자재였다. 첨단금융 기법으로 무장한 이들이 시장의 규모를 키우고 가격 변동폭을 키웠다. 원자재 시장은 이미 금융화되었다.” 국제금융센터 오정석 부장의 분석이다. 투기세력이 곡물 가격을 올렸다는 ‘증거’가 없다는 주장에 대해 “근거를 찾기 어렵다는 것은 데이터 분석의 한계를 의미하는 것이지 투기세력의 영향이 없었다고 단정할 수는 없다”라고 반박했다. 그러면서 한 가지 사례를 제시했다. 시카고상품거래소의 선물옵션 부문에서 20∼30% 수준에 머물렀던 투기매수 비중이&nbsp; 2000년대 들어 지속적으로 증가해 50%에 육박하고 있다는 점이다. <BR><BR><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=540 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16559_1521.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16559 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f><br />
<DIV align=right><FONT color=#0000ff>ⓒReuter=Newsis</FONT></DIV>1898년 버터·달걀 거래소로 출발한 시카고상업거래소(위)는 2007년 시카고상품거래소와 합병하면서 세계 최대 선물거래소 그룹으로 성장했다.</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>곡물 가격이 지속적으로 상승할 것이라는 ‘기대감’이 투기세력을 자극했다. 단기·고수익을 목표로 치고 빠지는 헤지펀드뿐만 아니라 기관투자<A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID3 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC00%uB098',event, 'KL_POP_ID3');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>가나</A> 장기·안정 수익을 목표로 하는 인덱스펀드 투자자들까지 끌어들였다. 과거 곡물 가격은 거의 일정한 범위 내에서 변해왔기 때문에 기대수익이 제로(0)에 가까웠고, 장기 포트폴리오에 편입시킬 만큼 매력이 없었다. 대개 10년 단위로 풍작과 흉작이 반복되어왔다. 그런데 지난 10년 동안 벌써 세 차례(2002~ 2003년, 2007~2008년, 2010년)나 기후 요인으로 인한 가격 불안이 초래됐고, 여기에 투기자본이 가세하면서 그 변동폭은 더욱 커졌다. 투기는 불안정성을 정말 사랑한다.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR><BR>선물의 가격 상승이 현물 가격의 상승을 초래하자 현물 구매자들 역시 투기에 가담했고, 가격이 더욱 상승할 때를 기다리느라 구매한 현물을 풀지 않았다. 수요는 증가하고 공급은 부족한 상태가 더욱 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID7 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC15%uD654',event, 'KL_POP_ID7');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>강화</A>되면서 가격 상승을 부채질했다. 결국 헤지펀드들이 주도한 투기는 실수요자들까지 끌어들여 거대한 투기 사슬을 형성하게 된 것이다. <BR><BR><br />
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=540 align=center><br />
<TBODY><br />
<TR><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD><br />
<TD align=middle><IMG border=1 alt="" src="http://www.sisainlive.com/news/photo/201008/8234_16560_1550.jpg"></TD><br />
<TD width=10>&nbsp;</TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px" id=font_imgdown_16560 colSpan=3><FONT color=#306f7f><br />
<DIV align=right><FONT color=#0000ff>ⓒReuter=Newsis</FONT></DIV>2007〜2008년 글로벌 애그플레이션이 닥치자 필리핀 정부는 서민에게 쌀을 배급했다.</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>세계 최대 곡물 거래소인 시카고상품<A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID10 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC70%uB798%uC18C%uAC00',event, 'KL_POP_ID10');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>거래소가</A> 만들어진 19세기 중반, 당초 목적은 농산물 가격의 안정이었다. 농산물을 수확할 때는 공급과잉으로 가격이 떨어지고, 또 그 반대의 상황이 반복되는 문제를 해결하기 위해 ‘선물’ 거래가 생겨났다. 가령 8월 수확을 전제로 1월에 미리 투자자와 협상을 해서 8월 확정 가격으로 계약을 하는 것이다. 농민들은 현물이 아닌 선물이라는 ‘<A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID5 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uAC00%uC0C1',event, 'KL_POP_ID5');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>가상</A>의 상품’을 놓고 벌이는 계약을 통해 가격을 보장받으니 가격 변동에 따른 위험 부담을 투자자와 나눠 질 수 있게 된 것이다. 선물거래가 일종의 ‘보험(hedge)’ 구실을 한 것이다. 하지만 실수요자가 아닌 투기자들이 가세하면서 정반대 상황이 되었다. 위험을 줄이기 위한 ‘선물’이 ‘위험 그 자체’가 된 것이다. <BR><BR>선물 상품의 계약이 이뤄졌을 때와 만기된 시점의 현물 가격 차이에서 발생하는 수익을 놓고 ‘베팅’하는 투기 거품이 점차 커지고 있다. 자체 인공위성을 띄우고 직원들에게는 들판에 나가 낟알 개수를 일일이 세어오라고 시킨다는 말이 있을 정도로 정확한 예측과 자체 정보망이 상상을 초월할 정도인 곡물 메이저 회사들. 이들에게 장악된 곡물시장에 금융자본이 가세하면서 무서운 시너지를 만들어낸 <A style="FONT-FAMILY: Dotum; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: #0000ff; FONT-SIZE: 14px; CURSOR: pointer; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" id=KL_POP_ID12 _onmouseover="KLmouseOver(this,'%uACB0%uACFC',event, 'KL_POP_ID12');" _onmouseout=KLmouseOut();>결과</A>다.</DIV></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><br />
<TR><br />
<TD height=20></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><br />
<P></P></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chsc.or.kr/?post_type=reference&#038;p=2253/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
