GMO Food for Thought

The adoption of biotech varieties of wheat could be vital to reviving the declining wheat industry in the United States, according to a recently published report.

The paper, “Addressing the Competitiveness Crisis in Wheat,” was jointly authored earlier this month by the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), the North American Millers’ Association, U.S. Wheat Associates, and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee.

According to the report, U.S. wheat production is suffering from a crisis of competitiveness. Expert growth is flat, planted acreage is declining, and domestic use has suffered from a proliferation of challenges. Farmers are choosing other options, such as corn and soybeans, over wheat in their crop rotations because those alternatives are more profitable. The wheat organizations write that if these trends are not reversed, the wheat chain that relies on domestic sources of wheat will face supply challenges that will ultimately impact the consumer.

Daren Coppock, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers, points out that wheat in America is at a crossroads. He points out that the share of American field crop receipts for wheat has fallen over the past 20 years to a low of about eleven percent.

“This tide can be turned, but it will require wheat cooperation and action,” said Mr. Coppock.

According to the wheat industry organizations, the lack of biotechnology is one of the primary reasons why farmers are turning away from growing wheat. Each year, the acreage of corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola spread further and displace acres that used to be planted with wheat crops, the only non-biotech crop among the five.

The wheat industry organizations say a concerted effort should be directed toward commercializing genetically modified traits in wheat at the earliest possible opportunity in order to improve its productivity and competitiveness with other genetically modified foods and crops. Efforts are also needed to ensure that marketing systems are in place to assure customers who desire conventional wheat, including regulatory systems that account for adventitious presence of biotech grains in non-biotech shipments, the organizations stated.

Since the earliest of times, wheat has been one of the most important grains in existence. Just about all of the products that individuals consume daily, including flour and pasta, contain this vital crop. Globally, wheat is a vital staple in feeding the world, and growers in the United States play an essential role in this process. It is a shame to learn that such an important industry is on the decline. Adopting biotechnology techniques will offer great promise to the wheat industry in the United States by offering lower costs, while increasing the crop’s quality and value, especially its nutritional value. The advantages for using biotechnology to revitalize the wheat industry in the United States are too numerous. The industry cannot afford to be left behind.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Here's a great article on how wheat and barley seeds are being genetically modified to resist heat and maintain an important nutritional enzyme used to alleviate an important deficiency found in developing countries.

Alisa

GM Cereal resists heat to boost Nutrition
by Wagdy Sawahel
SciDev.Net
June 19, 2006

Scientists have genetically modified wheat and barley so the seeds still contain an important nutritional enzyme after cooking.

The enzyme phytase helps people absorb zinc and iron and the researchers say the plants could be used to alleviate dietary mineral deficiency, which affects 2-3 billion people worldwide, primarily in developing countries.

In wheat, phytase looses its effectiveness at 63 degrees Celsius.

The team led by Henrik Brinch-Pedersen of the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences produced genetically modified (GM) wheat plants with phytase stable up to 89 degrees Celsius by inserting a phytase gene from the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus.

Flour produced from the GM wheat had up to six times more phytase than non-GM wheat flour.

Brinch-Pedersen's team also showed that even after boiling the GM wheat seeds for 20 minutes, they still contained enough phytase to allow people to absorb a significant amount of minerals.

The boiling test reduced the seeds' phytase content by 42 per cent, comparable to what is contained in unboiled non-GM seeds.

Iron deficiency in women and children in poor countries is the main cause of anaemia, which can stunt children's development and cause chronic fatigue in adults.

Zinc deficiency increases people's susceptibility to pneumonia and watery diarrhea, a major cause of death for children in the developing world.

Speaking to SciDev.Net, Brinch-Pedersen said his team had also developed GM barely plants with heat-stable phytases and were planning to do the same for rice.

The research was published on June 2, 2006 in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Biotechnology is among the leading factors currently reshaping the future of world agriculture, according to a recent published report.

The report, “Forces Reshaping World Agriculture,” was written by Jeremy Mattson and Won Koo of the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies at North Dakota State University. In the report, the authors examine many of the forces likely to reshape world agriculture, both now and in the future. These forces include agricultural policy, trade issues, significant movements in production and consumption in developing countries such as Brazil, Argentina, and China, and agricultural research and development, especially biotechnology.

Biotechnology was cited as a key factor in reshaping world agriculture because the technology enables farmers and growers to increase their productivity and crop yields despite limited available land. Biotechnology also leads to better quality foods that are lower in cost for consumers.

The authors point out that the growth of agriculture in areas like the United States depends upon increases in productivity. Since there is little land available for the expansion of agricultural production in the United States, this growth will require increased yields in crops. Competitiveness among exports will also depend upon relative growth in productivity against major competitors, and future growth in productivity will also be influenced by current and future agricultural research, especially public research.

“New developments that could lead to further productivity increases include improved technologies for nutrient, soil, water, pest management, precision agriculture, and agricultural biotechnology. The emergence of biotechnology could especially have a significant impact on productivity worldwide,” the authors write.

The report states that farmers benefit from the use of genetically modified (GM) crops through increased weed and insect control, which could lead to increased yields and decreased pesticide use and costs. Despite consumer concerns, the trend toward biotechnology and genetically modified crops is likely to continue because of the benefits and the gains it provides to farmers. While current biotech crops have been developed mainly to improve agricultural production, the authors write that future biotech crops could be introduced that have qualities such as increased nutritional content or other characteristics that would ultimately benefit the consumer.

“Consumer response to the further adoption of biotech crops is uncertain, but it may become more favorable as these crops are developed with more obvious benefits for consumers,” the authors state.

This new report is great news. Since the first genetically modified crops were introduced, biotechnology has helped to increase agricultural production around the world. The technology has led to higher yielding crop varieties, lower cost foods, and less reliance on pesticides and herbicides. As the population around the world increases, I believe that biotechnology is going to be relied upon even more for its advancements, including producing better nutritional foods, crops that can grow in drought conditions, and even plant made medicines to treat various diseases. I think that individuals and consumers should embrace the benefits that biotechnology can provide them and look positively on what the technology can bring to the rest of the world, both now and in the future.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article on how biotechnology is being used to help the wine industry.

Wine researchers using biotechnology
by Marcus Kabel
Associated Press via The Boston Globe
June 16, 2006

Every season, wine makers fight the same battles to protect their grapevines they have been fighting for thousands of years.

From ancient Mesopotamia to today's vineyards, the eternal enemies include fungus and bugs, extreme heat and unseasonable cold.

Now, Missouri State University researchers hope to apply genetic technology to make cultivated wine grapes as hardy as their wild cousins.

At the newly created Center for Grapevine Biotechnology, researchers are working to identify and transplant individual genes that make native grapes resistant to funguses that plague the European and hybrid vines most wine is made from.

Unlike the traditional crossbreeding of plants, genetic modification holds the potential for transferring specific traits without changing others, like the distinctive flavor of a pinot noir or chardonnay grape. It would also be much faster than the years it takes to grow hybrids.

"This is a new science for an ancient crop," said Dr. Laszlo Kovacs, co-director of the center.

The research is part of a global effort among wine making countries, dubbed the International Grape Genome Program.

It aims to decipher the roughly 30,000 genes in a grape plant, find which ones account for particular traits, such as hardiness or yield, and transfer desirable genes to wine grapes, said Kovacs, who grew up in a winemaking and farming family in central Hungary.

The center was created in April to house existing research that had been going on for about two years at its satellite campus in Mountain Grove, about 70 miles east of Springfield, home of the school's fruit and plant research. Most of the center's funding comes from grants, which this year total $332,000, Kovacs said.

The center's work is focused on a specific problem, fungal diseases. Funguses attack wine grapes all over the world, but they are worse in the Midwest because the climate is more humid and hotter than in many other wine regions.

Researchers are comparing how native and imported grapevines react to fungus attacks. They are trying to find which genes may account for the different reactions, giving the native grapes the ability to grow like weeds in an environment that can otherwise kill European varieties.

They are also building gene databases and experimenting with how best to splice individual genes into the cell of a grapevine to produce new, modified plants.

Kovacs said the final result, an improved grape plant that can be released for cultivation, is still a decade or more down the road for his center, but the potential benefits to growers and the environment are worth the wait.

"This is a huge savings to the environment and to growers' costs," he said.

Some wine growers, though, are skeptical of whether consumers or regulators will accept wine made from genetically modified vines.

Jon Held, vice president and general manager of Stone Hill Winery, the state's oldest, said consumers are generally wary of genetically modified foods.

The wine business has the added problem of being very bound to tradition and resisting even small changes, like continuing efforts to replace corks with screw caps.

"The big question in all of this is, will it be legal to use?"

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A great article about GMO research.

University of Hawai'i widening GMO Research
by Sean Hao
Honolulu Advertiser via AgBios
June 20, 2006

The University of Hawai'i is trying to genetically engineer hardier anthuriums and orchids.

The move comes despite growing friction between environmentalists and other concerned groups and the biotech industry in response to genetic research on taro and coffee, and concerns that genetically modified papaya are cross-pollinating with non-GMO papaya across the Islands.

Despite such concerns, UH plans to conduct greenhouse trials of two more types of genetically modified organisms and field trials on a third.

The work includes developing a bacteria- and fungus-resistant dendrobium orchid, a bacteria- and fungus-resistant anthurium, and a virus-resistant Mexican lime.

All of the research is being conducted with the backing of the agriculture industry, said Wayne Nishijima, an associate dean at the UH College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.

UH, which developed a ringspot-virus-resistant papaya in the mid-1990s, also has conducted research on genetically modified pineapples. However, UH's work on genetically modified taro has touched a nerve among some as being disrespectful to Hawaiian culture. That also has resulted in an offer by the university to give up patents covering taro research.

The university does not anticipate the research into orchids and anthuriums will generate the same level of concern.

"It's nothing that's indigenous to Hawai'i, and (excluding limes) they're not food crops," said Nishijima.

The limes eventually will be tested in fields. However, the orchids and anthuriums will be kept in greenhouses, UH said.

Nevertheless, opponents of genetic crop research and genetically modified food contend that not enough is known about the long-term impact of such products. They point out that many countries, including Japan, won't import them and that genetic research could taint Hawai'i's image.

"I think any GM research that's happening in Hawai'i is of concern just because we don't know the effects of this type of work on soil and insects," said Sarah Sullivan, director for Hawaii Seed, which opposes genetic crop research.

Industry proponents maintain that the risks of such research are minimal and manageable.

Meanwhile, members of both the orchid and anthurium sectors expressed support for the work at UH.

"We'd love everything and anything they do for us," said Graham Wood, chairman for the Hawaii Orchid Association. "It's a great help because we're competing with the Taiwanese, who get a lot of government support."

Similarly, Harold Tanouye, founder and president of Green Point Nurseries in Hilo, said UH work promises to cut down on the costs of plant propagation methods aimed at controlling bacteria that attack anthuriums.

"The biotechnology is a way of reducing the costs of production," he said. "We're doing everything to cut costs in order to remain a viable diversified crop grown in Hawai'i."

Lowering costs is key because Hawai'i anthuriums compete with those grown in lower-wage countries such as Costa Rica, Jamaica and Trinidad.

"We're talking about places that pay $5 to $8 a day for supervisory labor," Tanouye said. "That won't even pay for one hour of work here."

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A really interesting study on developing countries investing in agricultural biotechnology. Hope you find it very informative.

Alisa

Will Agbiotech Applications Reach Marginalized Farmers? Evidence from Developing Countries

David J. Spielman, International Food Policy Research Institute
Joel I. Cohen, Science, Technology and Education Associates
Patricia Zambrano, International Food Policy Research Institute

Findings from two studies on agricultural research indicate that although developing countries invest in agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified crop research, their policy and investment environments inhibit the contribution of such research to agricultural development and poverty reduction. Findings suggest that valuable private-sector resources are not being brought to bear on the development challenge, thus slowing the pace of innovation. For such research to benefit developing countries, greater effort is needed to enhance the international exchange of safety and efficacy information, remove the isolation of public research institutions, and overcome barriers to public-private research collaboration.

Many in the international research community are promoting agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) as a partial solution to reducing poverty, stimulating agricultural development, and promoting economy-wide growth in many developing countries. The research and development (R&D) path from advanced laboratories to farmers' fields is, however, fraught with impediments. This paper attempts to isolate some of the main barriers to the dissemination of agbiotech research and genetically modified (GM) crops to resource-poor, small-scale farmers in developing countries. Findings are based on two recent studies that focused specifically on the expectations and limitations on agbiotech research.

First, findings suggest that the regulatory environment governing the introduction of new technologies is slowing the forward movement of research into later stages of product development. The absent, incomplete, or nascent character of many regulatory regimes means that very few GM crops have moved onwards to efficacy and performance trials, testing for human and environmental safety, commercialization, marketing, or distribution.

Second, findings suggest that efforts to move through these later stages of product development have made limited use of available information from other countries on efficacy and safety. Although regional or international sharing of data is not necessarily a substitute for rigorous efficacy and safety testing, cross-country comparisons do provide important information that could be useful to researchers as they navigate complex regulatory testing processes.

Third, findings indicate that the public research organizations heading up much of the agbiotech research in developing countries are largely working in isolation from the private firms that lead the industry. These organizations have proven largely unable to forge effective partnerships with the private sector to exploit complementarities and achieve scale economies in agbiotech research. This means that public researchers are unable to access many of the tools, applications, and information needed to support their research processes.

Collectively, these factors imply that agbiotech is largely caught up in early stages of research, with neither an enabling policy environment nor the creative organizational mechanisms to move into stages of product development that could generate impacts on the rural poor in developing countries. Greater impact requires more investment in the design and implementation of biosafety regulations, construction of easily accessible clearinghouses for information on agbiotech, and development of policy incentives to promote public-private research partnerships.

Further information on this study can be found on the AgBioForum website.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article showing that genetically modified products are safe to consumers and the environment.

Enjoy!
Alisa

Scientists say GM rice safe

Truth About Trade and Technology
June 16, 2006

Iranian scientists have succeeded in proving that consumption of genetically-modified (GM) rice will incur no health and environmental risks.

Mohammad Ali Melboubi, a senior member of the Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Research Center, told ISNA that extensive research studies have shown that there no health problems are encountered through consuming GM rice, stressing that the findings of genetics and biotechnology groups involved in the project have been published.

"As per the National Biotech Document, Iran needs to cultivate at least two million tons of GM crops provided that 100 million hectares undergo cultivation of such crops worldwide," he said in response to Minister of Agriculture Jihad Mohammad Reza Eskandari's remarks banning cultivation of GM rice on health grounds.

"Our problem is that we have no biotech laws, leaving the sector with poor technical supervision and lack of boundaries," he said, adding that the nine-man working group made up of representatives of various scientific associations has verified the lack of health risks in consuming GM rice.

He said 90 million hectares are currently under GM rice cultivation worldwide.

Three weeks ago, the minister of agriculture Jihad said Iran has no plans to increase production and consumption of genetically-modified rice, stressing that GM products are not allowed to enter international markets.

"We have developed the GM rice technology but will keep it as knowledge and a scientific achievement as long as there is lack of concrete proof that GM products do not pose any health risks," he said, implying that laboratory production of GM food will continue.

Rice production reached 1.9 million tons in the year to March 2006 and is expected to rise to two million tons by next March, when the country will have attained 80 percent self-sufficiency in the crop.

Experts say rice consumption patterns need to be modified in Iran, where demand is constantly rising.

The country will need to import 450,000 tons of rice by next March.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I came across a very interesting commentary in the Ottawa Citizen recently written by Robert Wager, a biology professor at Malaspina University-College entitled “No Label Required.” The commentary answers a significant question that has been raised about genetically modified foods since the products were first introduced commercially ten years ago: Should special labels be required for GM Crops? The answer the author suggests is simple: No.

The author writes that in North America, all food products are subject to a product-based labeling system. All food labels must show the product’s nutritional information, including its protein, carbohydrate, and fat content. All known allergenic content must also be listed on the label to help those who may be allergic to certain products or proteins. Product-based labeling, therefore, is objective, verifiable, and enforceable.

The article also points out that all food products of agricultural biotechnology (GMOs) are examined extensively long before the product reaches the market. If the biotech product is the same as the parental variety, the author states, then the product is said to be substantially equivalent. Substantial equivalence is the safety evaluation process that has been endorsed by the majority of scientific organizations around the world such as the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association.

Despite this, different interest groups and individuals are calling for a new food labeling system based on how the crop was generated, especially whether the food was genetically modified or not. So, if genetically modified foods and crops are nutritionally the same as their counterparts, why should a special label be required?

Professor Wager writes that, for the sake of argument, if a product was going to be labeled based on the process used to make it rather than its content, there are a few questions that must be answered.

First, what is genetically modified (GM) food? Is anything that has its DNA manipulated a genetically modified product? If this is the basis for defining what a GM food is then almost every food on the commercial market, including organic foods, are GM foods.

Second, are highly processed foods genetically modified? Since most highly processed foods contain virtually no DNA or proteins, it would be impossible to verify its label.

Finally, what do we do about the detection of GM food products? Professor Wager points out that the average biotechnology crop has genetically engineered proteins accounting for .00004 percent of the total protein of the crop. If anything over.9 percent must be labeled (according to European Union regulations), then it would mean labeling for a GM content that is far below the levels of other common contaminants seen in different products, including grain.

Then, what should happen, since such labels on GM foods would not be verifiable and therefore would become unenforceable? The author says these are problems that have been seen in parts of the world that have adopted specific labeling systems for genetically modified foods.

The author also states there are new regulations that now permit a “GM-free” label to be placed on products. However, a company must pay for tests to prove their claim. It’s also been estimated that a GM-specific labeling system would increase food prices for the consumer. Since there is absolutely no evidence of any harm coming to anyone from consuming GM products, the author contends, there should not be a financial penalty put on the average consumer for the scientifically unjustifiable labeling demands of the few.

I completely agree with Professor Wager’s assertions about the unnecessary need for a specific label for genetically modified foods. I believe that placing such a label on these foods would be a pointless effort, just to appease a small group of individuals that have been driven by misinformation. Consumers have been eating foods with genetically modified ingredients for many years and there has not been one single illness that has been attributed to biotech foods. There have also been countless studies and reports over the years, including the 2005 World Health Organization report, have shown that genetically modified foods are safe.

I firmly believe that changing the product-based labeling system to an unreliable system based on how a crop was generated in the first place is not in the public’s best interest. The safety and the benefits of genetically modified foods cannot be ignored by the average consumer. The proof certainly speaks for itself.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article on how the Dutch government is getting involved in a variety of biotechnology projects.

Dutch Government supports GM Crop Research
SeedQuest
June 13, 2006

In a press release of March 31, 2006, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality stated that they tasked the Wageningen University to develop a genetically modified (GM) potato with resistance to late blight (Phytophthora infestans). The Dutch Government pays the project costs of Euro 9.9 million from the Economic Structural Fund (FES).

COGEM approved field trials with the GM potatoes.
The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM) advised the Dutch Government about the risks of field experiments with the GM potato. COGEM concluded that the risk of cross breeding with other potato breeds is limited as potatoes are vegetatively propagated and potato tubers do not survive the Dutch winter. COGEM concluded that the risks for humans and the environment are negligible.

The new GM potato breed will have huge potential benefits for the Dutch sector.
According to the press release of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, potato farming accounts for 80 percent of the fungicides used in The Netherlands. The Ministry reports that production of the new potato breed will require only half the level of the fungicides used for conventional potatoes. If the GM potato is successfully grown on a wide scale it would save the Dutch potato sector about Euro 150 million annually. For developing the GM potato, exclusively potato genes will be used. The primary objective is to use the research results for developing GM starch potatoes for the non-food market. But breeders could also use the research results for developing GM table potatoes. The project will take about ten years.

Cumbersome regulations and activists impede field trials.
Until today, successful experimental planting of biotech crops is almost impossible in The Netherlands. Crop trials are either effectively prevented by cumbersome regulations imposed by the Dutch government or impeded by the threat of protests from environmental groups. In July 2005, Dutch activists destroyed field trials with GM starch potatoes developed by the starch company Avebe. This GM potato breed contained an elevated content of amylopectin. The Dutch government has issued over 30 licenses for field trials of biotech crops. In 2006, only seven of these licenses are being used: five for field experiments with GM potatoes, one with GM apples, and one with GM flowers (carnation).

Corn trials will confirm buffer zone requirements.
Starting this week, six one-hectare field trials of the GM maize hybrid Mon810 will be conducted. The goal of these trials is to double-check the necessary buffer zones with conventional and organic maize crops. The Dutch Commission for Primary Sector Coexistence has previously determined the buffer zones for conventional and organic crops to be 25 meters and 250 meters, respectively. For these trials no license is needed as this maize breed is approved in the EU.

Rules on coexistence for growing GM potatoes and corn are in place.
On November 2, 2004, the Commission for Primary Sector Coexistence presented an agreement for coexistence to the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. The commission was set up to represent all sectors of Dutch agriculture. The agreement is set within the framework of the EC Directives 2001/18/EC and 2003/556/EC, and Dutch Civil Law. The agreement covers rules and regulations for the production of three products: potatoes, sugar beets and maize (see also GAIN Report Number: NL4033 and NL5028). The Dutch sector still needs to reach agreement on the scope of a compensation fund for possible damage to conventional and organic crops, and a monitoring system in the field.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A great article on a new treaty to safeguard the genetic diversity of crops.

UN agency urges backing for treaty on plant genetic resources as way to eradicate hunger
UN News Service
June 14 2006

The head of the United Nations food agency today urged all countries to fully back the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which aims to safeguard the genetic diversity of crops, describing it as “a fundamental tool in humanity's efforts to do away with hunger and malnutrition.”

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Director-General Jacques Diouf made his call at a meeting in Madrid of agriculture ministers at which they approved a Ministerial Declaration in which the Treaty’s contracting parties pledged its full implementation through specific national rules and programmes, the Organization said in a news release.

"We must reaffirm our political will to work for the benefit of present and future generations as well as our commitment to do everything possible to ensure that the Treaty is fully and comprehensively implemented," said Mr. Diouf, pointing to the challenge of feeding a growing world population that will reach nine billion people by 2050.

The ministers also expressed their conviction that the Treaty is vital to achieving the UN's Millennium Development Goals -- particularly eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and guaranteeing environmental sustainability. They also pledged to enhance national capacities for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources.

The Madrid meeting of the Ministerial Segment of the Treaty's governing bodies, chaired by Elena Espinosa, Spain's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was attended by over 70 countries, a fact which sent a powerful political message in support of the Treaty, according to FAO. This was the first meeting of the Treaty's governing body.

In his remarks, Mr. Diouf also gave several examples of progress made under the Treaty, including enabling developing countries to conserve and make better use of their plant genetic resources as well as those they obtain internationally, and also reversing a recent trend towards reduced international sharing of plant genetic resources.

FAO calculates that the average level of country interdependency for plant genetic resources is 70 per cent, meaning that all countries depend significantly on the genetic diversity of crops in other countries in order to be able to guarantee the food security of their own populations.

In a separate development related to food security, the FAO said its recent Regional Conference of Europe had underlined the key role of rural development driven by agriculture in combating poverty and hunger, especially in Europe’s transition countries.

Attended by agriculture ministers and delegates of 51 countries and numerous observers, the Conference in Riga, Latvia from 8-9 June, also urged greater FAO cooperation with and assistance to the countries of the region.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article on how Bt cotton helped China become a leader in the production of the product.

Alisa

Affordable Bt Cotton Tech Helped China Top Output
The Hindu Business Line
Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The Indian Seed Industry Association (ISIA) has said that affordable prices of Bt cotton technology in China had helped it become a global leader in cotton production.

"It is the main reason for China to become a global leader in cotton production with almost twice the average yield of India," Mr M. Prabhakar Rao, President of ISIA, said.

Two companies, Biocentury Transgene Technology Co Ltd (BTC) and Monsanto, through a joint venture offered Bt technology. BTC, which got the technology from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) that developed the indigenous technology, sold it to more than 30 private and provincial seed companies.

Cost of Bt seed "They (BTC) don't collect royalty on each packet a company sells. They take a lumpsum payment of $60,000 (about Rs 27 lakh) a year from each company irrespective of their sales," he said. This method helped reduce the difference between Bt and non-Bt seeds to a minimum. And as a result, seed prices were made affordable to farmers and increased the acreage very fast.

Monsanto technology was sold through a joint venture company. The royalty component was said to be 19 per cent of the wholesale seed price and comes to about $2 (Rs 90) a kg of seeds, the ISIA President said.

In China, the Bt cotton hybrid seeds are sold in 500g or 350g packs (unlike in India where 450-gm packs are sold). The cost of packet varies between $7.2 and $8. As per the information available from various industry sources, more area was planted with CAAS technology seeds as compared to that of Monsanto technology. The CAAS technology was becoming increasingly popular because of the wide variety of choices, lower costs and good bollworm control, he said.

Competition Mr Rao said China developed Bt technology in the public sector even before Monsanto's technology was approved, allowing more competition.

"This is the main reason for the competition in the market place and affordable seed prices in China. In India, the delay in the development of Bt technology in the public sector research and resultant monopoly of technology raised the seed prices," he said. Stating that this has increased the burden on farmers, he appealed to the Government to source such technology for commercial use in India by making one time payment to the developer and make it available to the farmers at a more affordable price.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article about how farmers are turning to GM crops to combat disease and other problems.

Brazil Soy Farmers Use Biotech Seeds To Fight Pests, Rust
Kenneth Rapoza
Dow Jones Newswires (via CattleNetwork.com)

Brazil's soy farmers are increasingly turning to genetically modified soy to combat insect disease and soybean rust, farmers and seed manufacturers said Wednesday during a soy conference in Parana.

"The tendency is for Brazil to rely more on GMO soy going forward. There's a psychological factor at play here - farmers think that GMO soy helps them control Asian soy rust," said Odilio Balbinotti, president of Sementes Adriana, the largest soybean seed producer in Mato Grosso.

Mato Grosso is the No. 1 soy producer in Brazil. Roughly 26% of the 2006-07 soy crop will likely be transgenic soy, compared to 10% in the 2005-06 crop, according to Balbinotti's calculations. Others put the number much higher.

GMO seeds are produced in laboratories by crop scientists manipulating the DNA material of plants, often including DNA proteins from other plants and introducing them to soybean seeds.

There is no GMO soy totally resistant to Asian soybean rust, an airborne fungus that that can be far more damaging to Brazilian soy crops than dry weather. Soy rust, which attacks the foliage of soy plants effectively starving them, has expanded over the last two crop seasons.

Many farmers in Mato Grosso lost yields in the 2005-06 crop because of soy rust. Balbinotti expects yields around 31 60-kilogram bags per hectare, one of the lowest yields ever for Mato Grosso. The state usually produces 40 bags per hectare on the low end. Low yields means farmers need to harvest more soy to fill a bag than they needed to harvest in the past.

GMO soy helps control weeds, which in turn opens up space between soy plants and thus reduces the humidity levels that the fungus requires to spread. Soybean rust can worsen drastically in a period of a week, making it difficult to control, according to researchers at Embrapa, Brazil's official crop science institute.

Jose Tadashi Yorinori, an Embrapa researcher in Parana, estimated that Brazil farmers lost 6.6 million metric tons of soy in the 2005-06 crop to soy rust. Brazil should harvest 53.8 million tons of soy, according to official estimates released Monday. Estimates earlier in the year had the crop at roughly 58 million tons.

"My entire soy crop next year will be GMO," said Paulo Pinto, a farmer at Coprossel in Parana. Parana is the No. 2 soy producing state. Pinto grows soy for the local seed market. In 2005-06, 50% of his crop was GMO soy.

"Everyone I know will double their GMO plantings next year," Pinto said about the 2006-07 soy season.

Brazil is the world's No 2 soy producer and exporter. GMO soy was permitted in Brazil only recently due to farmer demand, but the topic remains controversial as some states like Parana have tried to ban GMO from its port in Paranagua.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a great article that shows that genetically engineered products are actually better and more beneficial than their organic counterparts.
Enjoy !
Alisa

Organics Business Big and Growing
By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.
American Council on Science and Health's Facts and Fears.com Blog

The organic food movement is poised to enter the big time: according to the USDA, sales of organic foods will near $18 billion by the end of 2007 -- up from about $10 billion in 2003. You might think this would make organic adherents happy -- but no, there seems to be a fair bit of angst out there, if Michael Pollan's article in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine is an example of the general attitude.

What's the concern? Apparently, organic food has become so popular that big companies like Kraft and Wal-Mart are getting involved in producing and marketing a host of organic foods and groceries -- and now at least some organic promoters are concerned that it won't be your dad's old organic market any more.

That's probably true -- and for consumers who are interested in buying organic food that's a good thing. Involvement of major food companies and retailers like Wal-Mart will likely drive down the price of the more expensive organic products (compared to conventionally produced items).

But for some, organic means more than a production process -- it's almost a religion. For adherents such as Mr. Pollan, the whole organic movement stands for much, much more. Supposedly, organically produced food is more nutritious and because it contains fewer synthetic pesticides, purportedly making it more healthful for consumers and the planet. And supposedly, organic production methods mean that small farmers will be able to survive in a less competitive marketplace.

But as we've noted in the past, there really is no good evidence that organically-produced food is any more nutritious than its conventional counterpart. Further, an insistence on organic agriculture may well be more environmentally harmful than otherwise. Organic farming, for example, is less efficient in terms of crop yield (see Mader P, Fliebach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 2002; 296(5573):1694-1697) and thus would require more land to produce crops than would conventional farming.

Further, to be labeled as organic, foods must be produced without the use of genetic engineering (gene splicing). This taboo means that pesticide-resistant crops that can decrease the use of a variety of synthetic pesticides are forbidden. Also out of reach will be genetically engineered livestock, such as the "enviro-pig," which will excrete less water-polluting phosphorus.

As far as the supposed effects on small farmers, I don't believe that sales of organic food by Wal-Mart will have that much impact. The folks who shop at Whole Foods and farmers' markets now, and who can afford the prices there, are not likely to switch their allegiance to a large supermarket any time soon. These are people who value supporting local producers, and they will probably continue to do so.

So, yes, Mr. Pollan may well be correct in his concern that involvement of major players in the food industry will change the organic marketplace: but he's likely to be wrong that this will harm the health of either consumers or the planet.

Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent study in the United States has shown that cotton plants that have been genetically modified can offset some of the environmental impacts of intensive agriculture, including killing the crop’s main insect pest and reducing pesticide use while having no significant effects on non-targeted organisms and crops.

According to the article, the study compared conventional cotton with two genetically modified (GM) varieties. One had a bacterial gene that produces a toxin called Bacillus thuringiensis, or more commonly known as Bt. Bt is a naturally occurring insecticide that kills pink bollworm, an insect that primarily feeds upon cotton crops. The other genetically modified cotton variety had an additional inserted gene that makes it resistant to herbicides, which allows farmers to control the weeds growing in their fields without harming their cotton crops.

During the two year study, the research team, led by Dr. Yves Carriere of the University of Arizona, also compared the amounts of insecticides and herbicides that farmers used, as well as the amount of cotton produced in 81 commercial cotton fields in a region of Arizona that were planted with the different types of genetically modified cotton. The researchers found that, per pesticide application, the genetically modified cotton produced nine percent more cotton per acre than the conventional cotton crops. However, farmers that planted the GM cotton used fewer applications of a broad-spectrum insecticide. As a result, the farmers ended up with similar yields per acre regardless of the type of cotton that was grown. The types of cotton also had no effect on how much insect biodiversity was in a particular field, according to the researchers’ findings.

The researchers also pointed out that a crop’s yield, the use of pesticides by farmers, and the effects these pesticides have on non-targeted organisms and crops should be considered all together in order to assess the environmental impact of using genetically modified crops.

“The take-home message is that transgenic crops are very promising for reducing the impact of agriculture, but we need to study how they (genetically modified crops) are integrated into the way we do agriculture,” said Dr. Carriere. He also pointed out that much of the acceptance of using genetically modified crops depends on how the producers react to the technology.

The research findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences early last month.

This study is good news. More than half of the genetically modified cotton produced in the world is grown in the United States and farmers in states like Mississippi and Louisiana have already embraced GM cotton and its benefits. In other nations around the world like South Africa, China, and India, biotech cotton is also grown on a large scale. Even though researchers in India last year warned that Bt cotton grown there was not effective at killing bollworms, this study does show much promise for genetically modified crops, especially in reducing any environmental impact. I hope that more farmers and growers around the world will view this study, see what GM crops can offer, and react positively to the benefits that biotechnology can bring to their farms and to their future.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)