GMO Food for Thought

Food products derived from livestock that have eaten crops created through biotechnology do not present a risk to consumers, according to a new report released by a nonprofit consortium of scientists.

A three member task force of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) wrote the report, which looked at the regulatory assessments and evaluated the safety data of food products.

Founded in 1972, CAST is a consortium of 38 scientific and professional societies as well as company and nonprofit members and more than 1,200 individual members. The group brings together agriculture experts from around the world to assemble, interpret, and communicate scientific information.

The task force report found that meat, eggs, and milk produced by farm animals that were fed genetically modified crops were as safe, wholesome, and nutritious as similar products produced by animals that consumed conventional crops.

According to Richard H. Phipps, chairman of the panel that wrote the report, production of crops using agricultural biotechnology, including corn, soybean, canola, and cotton, has increased dramatically during the last ten years, and biotech crops serve as an important feedstuff in livestock production systems. Because animal products represent about one-sixth of food energy and one-third of food protein that a human needs, it was essential, according to Mr. Phipps, to “consider the safety of meat, milk, and eggs obtained from animals fed crops derived from modern biotechnology.”

The three member task force reviewed information from the late 1990s through 2005, including regulatory assessments on genetically modified crops. The panel also looked at results of feeding studies in farm animals and examined what happens when animals consumer various proteins and DNA, among other areas. The report also stated that evidence indicating the possible presence of plant DNA fragments in the tissue of animals also did not present a risk to consumers. In addition, the reports said the regulatory process regarding genetically modified foods currently in place have been effective in safeguarding public health. Further, the report recommends that future research continue in order to ensure continued safety and nutritional value of feeds in “current and future crops derived from modern biotechnology.”

The report is part of a series on animal agriculture’s future through biotechnology, according to John M. Bonner, executive vice-president of CAST.

With news of this report, environmental advocacy groups and opponents of biotechnology reaffirmed their stance that people not eat genetically modified products. These organizations claim that the testing of genetically modified foods is “inadequate” and that people can not be confident about the safety of such foods.

Despite this opposition, the report is expected to be presented at international science symposiums throughout the year.

Since the first genetically modified crops were introduced commercially over ten years ago, there have been countless studies and reports, including last year’s World Health Organization (WHO) report, that have shown that genetically modified foods are safe and pose no risk to consumers. This report from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology reaffirms this statement. Despite the assertions made by environmental advocates and opponents about these foods, I believe that farmers will continue to use biotech crops to feed their livestock and consumers will continue to eat said foods. Biotechnology is not going to go away because a select group of individuals feel it isn’t safe. The benefits that biotechnology provides clearly outweigh the hypothetical risks. It’s too important for the future and betterment of the world.

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

Here's a good article on how biotechnology is expanding in Malaysia.

Alisa

Biotech Industry to drive Agriculture
By Musalmah Johan
The Star (Malaysia)
July 31, 2006

The biotechnology industry is expanding at an exciting and brisk pace. Like no other industry today, biotechnology offers the market potential for highly attractive products that have economic as well as environmental benefits.

Biotechnology is poised to reduce the use of pesticides, increase farmers’ revenues and improve the nutritional quality of food.

The term “biotechnology” refers to the use of living organisms or their products to modify human health and the human environment.

We can combine the genetic elements of two or more living cells by using the techniques of gene splicing and recombinant DNA technology.

Functioning lengths of DNA can be taken from one organism and placed into the cells of another organism.

As a result, we can cause bacterial cells to produce human molecules. Cows, for example, can produce more milk for the same amount of feed.

In addition, we can synthesise therapeutic molecules that have never before existed.

Food biotechnology is relatively new in Malaysia, although food and food ingredients produced by traditional biotechnology, such as fermentation technology, has brought to market products like soy sauce, dadih and tempeh.

Although Malaysia has not yet produced a biotechnology crop commercially, several genetically modified crops containing traits of value have been produced at the experimental stage.

At the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, rice has been successfully modified to resist the tungro virus, and papayas manipulated to resist ring-spot virus infection and to have a prolonged shelf life.

Other crop plants such as pineapples are manipulated to resist “black heart”, bananas and papayas for delayed ripening, and chili for virus resistance.

Malaysia is also developing genetically engineered oil palm, with a focus on increasing value-added products from the palms, such as high oleate and high stearate oil, nutraceuticals (vitamin A and E), biodiesel and bioplastics.

Several animal recombinant vaccines have been produced to assist the development of animal husbandry.

In order to reduce the high costs associated with imported feed, research is also underway in Malaysia to generate cheaper domestic livestock feed, through biotechnology.

In Malaysia, the focus of biotechnology work is on the needs of the nation.

Improving food production has been, and will always be, one of the top priorities and commitments of government agencies involved in biotech.

The economic crisis of the late ’90s has prompted the Government to take a second look at, and a new stance on, the importance of agriculture, especially in food production, to the national economy.

The Government has stressed the need for producing sufficient food for national security and stability.

The huge and growing budget for food and feed imports clearly indicates the need to transform our agricultural sector, so that it can produce enough food for the people.

Therefore, the Government is well aware of the potential benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. At the same time, their impact on consumers as well as producers is recognised.

The Government is aware and has become more cautious about food safety and the potential risks of transgenic food crops.

Consequently, it has the responsibility to assure the public of the safety and the “halalness” of the genetically modified crops, as well as to safeguard against any adverse effects on human health and the environment.

Thus, a Genetic Modification Advisory Committee was established under the National Committee on Biodiversity, Science, Technology and the Environment Ministry.

The committee’s role is to ensure that risks associated with the use, handling and transfer of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are identified and safely managed, and to advise the Government on matters relating to the GM technology and its application.

As the GMOs are relatively new to Malaysian consumers, the National Biotechnology Directorate is stepping up its efforts to implement public awareness programmes on biotechnology.

The programmes include arranging lectures at public forums and schools, preparing and distributing pamphlets about biotechnology, and promoting a better understanding of biotechnology through the media.

The biotechnology sector faces a challenging future with increasing global competition.

To make Malaysia more competitive in this industry, the Government will, under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, implement the strategic thrust of the National Biotechnology Policy, with the active participation of private sector.

The “BioNexus” concept will be adopted to strengthen the existing institutions along with a parallel development of the industry.

The biotechnology industry can become the main driving force behind growth of the agriculture sector in Malaysia.

With the recognition as the world’s halal hub, and given importance attached to the biotechnology industry, Malaysia is poised to introduce biotechnology products with GM label and halal certification.

Musalmah Johan is a senior research officer with the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article on the latest developments at the US wheat conference, including discussions on biotech wheat.

Regards,
Alisa

Biotech talk tops '06 US wheat conference
By Phyllis Jacobs Griekspoor
Wichita Eagle
July 28, 2006

The time has come for wheat to join the biotechnology revolution. That was the message as producers, researchers, wheat breeders and government regulators gathered in Wichita on Thursday for the 2006 Kansas Wheat Conference.

"The future of the wheat industry and the future of the human food supply rests on biotechnology," state Secretary of Agriculture Adrian Polanskysaidin his opening remarks at the conference. "We must embrace biotechnology."

Wheat farmers have missed out on the benefits that biotechnology has brought to producers of corn, cotton, canola and soybeans, including $27 million in increased revenue over the last 10 years, said Kansas State University research and extension leader Forrest Chumley.

"A lot of the talk you hear makes it seem that biotechnology has not been widely accepted and that it has been less than successful," Chumley said. "Nothing could be further from the truth."

He said biotech crops are grown by 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries.

A variety of factors has slowed the research into biotech wheat, Chumley said, notably a small number of researchers, a complex genome and fears of losing export markets.

Colby producer Mike Brown said he thinks the fact that wheat is primarily a human food product also has played a role.

"People are a little quicker to accept genetic modification of fiber crops or animal feed crops than they are human food," he said.

The wheat industry has also been divided on the issue.

"I think the fact that the first trait offered was herbicide resistance hurt progress," Brown said. "There was only a small segment of the industry that actually wanted that trait."

One of the most promising new gene traits is resistance to a disease called fusarium, which causes head blight and creates a toxin that can cause serious health problems.

"You offer fusarium resistance as a genetic trait and I think you'll see farmers embrace the technology," Brown said.

Dean Stoskopf, former president of the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, farms near Hoisington. He said he wouldn't hesitate to plant biotech wheat if he thought the modified trait would add value to his operation.

"I think drought tolerance and disease resistance would be popular," he said.

Also promising is the ability to genetically modify wheat to remove the allergens from the gluten, enabling millions of people who suffer from celiac disease to be able to eat wheat products.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a great article on the biotech industry in Hawaii.

Regards,
Alisa

Hawaii GM seed business updated
Pacific Business News
July 25, 2006

Hawaii is an epicenter for genetically modified crop seed because of its climate, not its remoteness, says the trade group for GM seed growers here.

The Hawaii Crop Improvement Association represents companies that have 8,000 acres in Hawaii for seed crops. Its head told PBN the key is the weather.

"We can grow three to four generations of seeds in a single calendar year here," said association president Paul Koehler. "What that does for the industry is compress the amount of time that it takes to grow the product."

Hawaii farmers grow a small amount of soybeans, sunflowers and cotton for seed, but 95 percent of the crop seed grown in Hawaii is corn and Hawaii grows more corn for seed than it does for eating.

"Corn's center of original is the Central American highlands, and because Hawaii falls within that same geographic latitute, we can grow corn here much easier than we can grow those other crops," Koehler explained. "For instance, soybeans are very daylight-sensitive and we have to supplement with lights to get the soybeans to grow more than about a foot tall, or else plant breeders would have to work on their hands and knees all day."

Genetically modified crops are bred to reduce the amount of pesticides that are used in production of seed, or to reduce the number of kinds of chemicals necessary, or to minimize the amount of tilling necessary.

"Today a grower can choose to have a plant that has insect resistance, or you can have a certain environmental profile that allows the use of certain herbicides," Koehler said. "You can also provide health benefits."

GM seed can go for as little as $80 for a bag of 80,000 kernels, or as much as $150 a bag, depending on the options the farmers chooses, Koehler said.

Environmentalists and some farmers worry about the cross-pollenation of GM crops with other crops. Koehler said the agriculture community has extensive knowledge of how much and how far pollen will actually travel, and GM seed growers plant hedge rows and wind breaks to achieve isolation. They also plant seed a specific distance away from other fields and do staggering planting dates so the GM seed can't be in the right place at the right time.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a great commentary I came across recently on the commercial sale of GM rice in China. Hope you find it very interesting.

Regards,
Alisa

Biotech Tipping Point
by Dean Kleckner, Chairman
Truth About Trade & Technology
July 21, 2006

China is no newcomer to the biotech-crop club--only four countries plant more acres of GM crops than the world’s most populous nation. Yet government leaders in Beijing are on the verge of a decision that historians eventually may interpret as a tipping point in the global debate over genetically modified food.

A “tipping point” is the dramatic moment when something unique or rare becomes utterly common. The term has academic origins, but it gained enormous popular attention a few years ago, upon the publication of Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.

I’ve argued that when it comes to biotech crops, we passed the tipping point long ago. My own favorite metaphor has involved the genie and the bottle--the biotech genie is out of the bottle, and nobody will ever coax him back in. The bottom line is that with well more than a billion acres of GM crops now having been planted and harvested, this agricultural technology is here to stay.

And that fact will become irreversibly true when China approves the commercial sale of GM rice. One recent report suggests that regulators may not approve commercial sales of the rice this year, but it’s only a matter of time before they do.

Anybody who has ever eaten Chinese food knows how important rice is to the Chinese diet--it’s the most basic and popular food in the world’s biggest country. How’s that for a tipping point?

As it happens, biotech rice is already a fact of life in China. The government has researched and tested it, the way governments do before they approve a product for the marketplace. But it’s also seeping into commercial use: Earlier this month, anti-biotech activists at Greenpeace said they that had purchased several bags of rice, tested them for biotech, and received positive results.

I don’t trust much of what Greenpeace says, but in this case their finding seems plausible. It wouldn’t be the first time biotech crops have gained a foothold in a country before they were formally approved for planting. That’s what happened a few years ago in Brazil, which shares a border with Argentina, one of the world’s leading producers of biotech soybeans.

Brazilian farmers decided that they wanted to take advantage of biotechnology--higher yields, lower costs--just as their neighbors in Argentina did. So they started smuggling seeds across the border. Brazil eventually approved biotech soybeans, but its decision came in the wake of decisions that farmers already had been making for themselves.

It’s not clear exactly how biotechnology moved from field tests to commercial paddies in China, or precisely how widespread GM rice has become there. No matter what the details, it doesn’t take the wisdom of Confucius to understand the motives of Chinese farmers.

A recent study by a team of Chinese and American scientists revealed that the use of biotech rice reduced pesticide costs by 80 percent. “We estimate that if 90 percent of the farmers plant GM rice, then the annual agricultural income of China will increase by $4 billion,” said Huang Jukun, director of the Agriculture Policy Research Center at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

That’s a lot of cash, even in a country that has more than a billion mouths to feed. Government leaders, which recently have promised to improve the economic health of rural China - where a lot of rice is grown - are certain to take note.

What’s more, they have nothing to fear from biotechnology and they know it. They’ve been living with it for years, and now they’re even importing it from the United States: The first cargo of American-grown GM corn is reaching Chinese docks right now.

Around the world, GM crops are becoming more popular. No country that has allowed access to this technology has subsequently turned its back on biotech, in what we might label an “untipping point.” To be sure, a number of European nations continue to hold out against GMOs. Yet they are becoming increasingly isolated, and China’s forthcoming decision will highlight their detachment.

You certainly don’t need to crack open a fortune cookie to predict the future of rice farming in China: Farmers want it, and they will get it.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

A great article on a new horizon in biotechnology: virus-resistant trees. Hope you find it very informative.

Alisa

Next up for biotech: Virus-resistant trees
by Philip Brasher
Des Moines Register
July 23, 2006

When a virus was discovered in Jim Lerew's Pennsylvania peach orchard in 1999, all 160 acres of trees had to be destroyed.

He hasn't planted any replacement trees since then for fear the virus would attack them, too.

The only way to halt the spread of the virus is to destroy the entire orchard that is infected, and that's a risk a grower can't afford to take when an acre of fruit trees can be worth $10,000.

"That's a difficult situation to get enthused about planting under," Lerew says.

But the government soon could approve the first fruit trees that have been genetically engineered to resist this virus, known as the plum pox, which attacks several types of trees, including plums, apricots, peaches and cherries.

It will be a milestone for agricultural biotechnology, which has so far mostly been limited to field crops like corn, soybeans and cotton.

The biotech trees also are unusual in that they were developed in the public sector and through collaboration between scientists in the United States and Europe, where the virus has destroyed 100 million trees.

Scientists found that trees can be made immune to the virus by inserting into the trees a gene from a virus protein.

Similar work earlier on papayas has been credited with saving Hawaii's papaya industry.

"I think it's a step in the right direction," Lerew says of the advance in biotechnology. "You still have to grow a piece of fruit that the consumer desires."

You also have to persuade the public to accept the idea of genetically engineered fruit.

"It's not a problem unless the consumers find out about it, which they probably will," says Lerew. "But we have to get over that."

The trees were developed by scientists who work for an arm of the U.S. Agriculture Department - the Agricultural Research Service. Another division of USDA - the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - will decide whether the trees, dubbed Honeysweet, are safe for the environment and public health and can be commercialized.

If the trees are approved for commercialization - and that appears likely - USDA would then offer to license the technology to tree producers.

USDA has received hundreds of letters and e-mails from people who argue that the pollen from the trees could contaminate conventional or organic orchards or that there isn't enough known about the safety of genetically engineered food.

The critics also don't like that USDA is both the developer and the regulator of the technology.

A typical concern in the comments to USDA: "People who care about what they eat do not want foods that have been tinkered with in their food supply."

The scientists at USDA responsible for evaluating the safety of the trees concluded that there is no danger to the environment.

Kent Bradford, director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California-Davis, agrees. Extensive trials of the trees over the past decade have shown that they are both safe and effective, he wrote USDA.

But the question still remains about whether consumers will buy biotech fruit.

A fresh peach, after all, is not quite the same as, say, soy lecithin or corn oil, food ingredients derived from crops that are genetically modified.

"Consumers probably feel a little bit differently about things they consume directly, fresh fruits and vegetables," says Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article that talks about how Britian plans to introduce genetically modified crops into the country.

Regards,
Alisa

British GM plan 'will protect conventional crops'
by Mark Oliver
Guardian Unlimited
July 21, 2006

The British government announced plans for a series of measures it says would ensure genetically modified crops could be introduced safely to Britain in the future and coexist with other crops.

The proposals include enforcing strict separation distances between GM crops and conventional crops - a move designed to ease fears of contamination.

Friends of the Earth criticised the proposals, outlined in a consultation paper, as an attempt to permit GM crops though the "back door".

The environmental group said it was an attempt to back the biotech industry while "cynically disregarding the millions of British consumers who have clearly said they want their food, farming and environment to stay GM-free".

The government said that under EU rules, no GM crops will be grown in the UK unless scientific evidence shows they are safe for human health and the environment and no commercial GM cultivation was expected before 2009 at the earliest.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said its proposals for a system of safeguards were calculated to ensure GM crops did not disadvantage other farmers.

The plans would mean that anyone hoping to grow GM crops like maize or oilseed rape would have to ensure that they observed the required separation distance and notify neighbouring farmers, if neccesary, to minimise GM cross-pollination.

As part of the consultation paper, Defra is seeking views on a number of related issues, including:

-whether special rules should apply for coexistence between GM and organic crops

-options for compensating financial losses that non-GM farmers might face due to the presence of GM material in their crops

-whether there should be a public GM crop register

-guidance to farmers on voluntary GM-free zones

Clare Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, said they were particularly concerned by the prospect of crops being introduced without a public register, which she said should be mandatory.

"The government has been very wary of speaking about GM crops in recent years because of the huge opposition by the public. This consultation has been delayed for two years," Ms Oxborrow said.

"Meanwhile, the GM industry has changed tactics and has been quietly lobbying the EU for licenses to introduce GM crops."

Ian Pearson, the environment minister, defended the government's position. "Our top priority is protecting consumers and the environment. We have a strict EU regime in place which ensures only GM crops that are safe for human health and the environment could be grown in the UK," he said.

"No GMs suitable for UK conditions have met this requirement so far and today's proposals are not a green light for GM crops."

Mr Pearson said the government had a responsibility to be "fully prepared if crops which meet the safety criteria and developed and grown here in future". He said Defra was keen to hear people's views that would inform "our further thinking".

Friends of the Earth urged the public to take part in the consultation. The group said that the "government's consultation assumes that significant levels of GM contamination are acceptable" and did not address the "crucial issue" of how to stop any contamination.

The campaign group said EU food labelling rules said accidental GM contamination of up to 0.9% is allowed before foods have to be labelled as GM. The group said the UK government had taken this to mean that 0.9% GM contamination in conventional crops was acceptable.

Ms Oxborrow said: "This consultation is a complete sham. It highlights the lengths the government will go to back the biotech industry and pave the way for GM crops to be grown in Britain.

"The only way biotech companies will be able to grow their crops on a large scale is to allow widespread GM contamination of conventional and organic crops. And this is exactly what the UK government is preparing to do."

The Agriculture Biotechnology Council (abc), which represents the biotech industry, welcomed Defra's proposals and said coexistence was "already a reality for farmers around the world".

The council said there were 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries growing GM crops "without any coexistence problems". Tony Combes, abc's deputy chairman, said: "Coexistence is not a new concept for Britain's farmers, who for many years have grown different types of crops together, to meet the demands of a range of customers and markets.

"We endorse SCIMAC's [the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops] approach to practical coexistence measures so that British farmers can benefit from this technology if they wish to do so."

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Here's a great article on the latest efforts in improving cassava, which is relied upon by many developing nations.

Alisa

Danforth Center spearheads effort to sequence cassava at national research center
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
July 20, 2006

The U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (DOE JGI) recently announced that it selected a proposal organized by the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center to conduct genome sequencing of the cassava plant (Manihot esculenta).

Dr. Claude M. Fauquet, principal investigator from the Danforth Center, led a consortium comprised of over a dozen scientists from 11 institutions that submitted the proposal to the DOE JGI.

“Sequencing the cassava genome will help bring this important crop to the forefront of modern science and generate new possibilities for agronomic and nutritional improvement,” said Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel laureate, father of the “Green Revolution,” and Distinguished Professor of International Agriculture, Texas A&M University. “It is a most welcome development, especially for millions of the world’s poor who depend upon cassava for their sustenance.”

“This new cassava project builds on the past participation of the Danforth Center in the maize and soybean genome sequencing programs to now focus on a crop for the developing-world,” Danforth President Dr. Roger N. Beachy explained. “Dr. Claude M. Fauquet is a recognized leader in cassava biology and biotechnology, co-chair of the Global Cassava Partnership, and he will collaborate with Dr. Brad Barbazuk, a bioinformatics specialist at the Danforth Center, and with genomics experts from TIGR and Broad Institute, to apply the project’s data in future work to enhance cassava.”

“The successful lobbying of the DOE JGI by the Danforth Center to sequence the cassava genome validates its importance as a high starch producing crop. The acquisition of the cassava genome sequence will facilitate our understanding of this crop and its relatives within the relatively under explored Euphorbiaceae family,” Dr. Fauquet announced. “These tools will link genes to genetic and physical maps to accelerate breeding programs, identify cassava gene targets for biotechnology development, and provide a platform to explore the vast biodiversity within cassava wild species. Ultimately these activities will improve food security for developing countries by increasing cassava crop yield and its nutritional quality, and will position cassava as a valuable source of renewable bio-energy.”

“Cassava is a root crop that accumulates large quantities of starch with an unrivaled efficiency, and represents an important source of calories within many developing countries. The cassava genome sequence will enable scientists to apply the knowledge gained from the current collections of plant genomic, proteomic and metabolomic data to cassava, thus enabling a better understanding of the molecular basis of cassava development, morphology and physiology,” said Dr. Barbazuk.

The DOE JGI chose to sequence cassava because it is an excellent energy source. Its roots contain 20-40% starch that costs 15-30% less to produce per hectare than starch from corn, making it an attractive and strategic source of renewable energy. Cassava grows in diverse environments, from very dry to extremely humid, from acidic to alkaline soils, from sea level to high altitudes, and in nutrient-poor soil. Moreover, it is grown worldwide as a source of food for approximately 1 billion people, raising the possibility that it could be used globally to alleviate dependence on fossil fuels. The effort to sequence the cassava genome will be aided by alignments to the genomes of poplar and castor bean, plants closely related to cassava, and available cassava BAC libraries and EST and cDNA sequences will facilitate annotation. This project will elucidate the genetic machinery required for efficient energy production in a range of environments, and the information it yields will enable improvement to a wide range of crops important for the U.S. biofuel supply.

In addition to the Danforth Center, the consortium includes the United States Department of Agriculture, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Chicago, The Institute for Genomic Research, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Broad Institute, Ohio State University, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, and the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________

About The DOE Joint Genome Institute

The DOE Joint Genome Institute (DOE JGI), supported by the DOE Office of Science, unites the expertise of five national laboratories, Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest, along with the Stanford Human Genome Center to advance genomics in support of the DOE mission related to clean energy generation and environmental characterization and clean-up. DOE JGI’s Walnut Creek, Calif. Production Genomics Facility provides integrated high-throughput sequencing and computational analysis that enable systems-based scientific approaches to these challenges. Additional information about DOE JGI can be found at: www.jgi.doe.gov.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A great article on how Bangladesh has adopted a policy to increase biotechnology development in the country.

Alisa

Biotech policy declared in Bangladesh
by Rafiq Hasan
The Daily Star
July 20, 2006

The Bangladesh government yesterday declared a National Biotechnology Policy in order to keep pace with the fast advancing field of modern biotechnology and achieve world class competence in the fields of research and innovation.

A meeting of the National Taskforce on Biotechnology of Bangladesh (NTFBB) with Prime Minister Khaleda Zia in the chair gave final approval to the policy placed by the Ministry of Science, Information and Communication Technology.

"The approval of National Biotechnology Policy will be considered as a milestone in our effort to promote highest level of science and technology in this country," said Science and ICT Minister Abdul Moyeen Khan.

"The policy will help increase agriculture productivity and food security as well contribute to poverty alleviation and ensuring higher quality of life," he told The Daily Star after the meeting.

He said the policy will open up a new window of opportunity for the resource- starved country like Bangladesh.

Under the new policy one can easily go into researches involving genetic engineering and open up new vista of innovation and development involving living cells, be it human being, animal or plant, he added.

The policy also emphasised protecting indigenous community knowledge, collective innovations and community rights.

For ensuring those, the Community Knowledge Protection Act will be enacted to give guidelines, where it is necessary, to innovations of any form that have used natural and biological resources.

Immediate action programmes will also be taken for the development of biotechnology in the country in various sectors like agriculture, health, industry and environment. The programmes will reflect the urgent national needs and requirements in terms of funding manpower and equipment.

An international biotechnology advisory committee will be formed with internationally recognised experts in different areas of biotechnology to advise the government on priority areas of research and development.

Besides, the science and ICT ministry will develop a priority plan in different areas of biotechnology to keep pace with the fast advancing field of biotechnology and genetic engineering for poverty alleviation, sustainable development improvement of quality of life and biodiversity conservation.

The new policy will encourage the universities to introduce and strengthen biotechnology and genetic engineering at the undergraduate and post graduate levels. At the same time the biotechnological courses will be introduced at the secondary and higher secondary levels through modification of existing course curricula on biology.

Young graduates will be encouraged for undertaking higher academic studies in advanced universities abroad.

The policy draft says in biotechnology research, problem arises concerning the protection of intellectual property for innovations in this field beyond legal and ethical questions. In view of the special quality of living organisms the scope of patents has to be clearly defined to find balance between innovation and public interest.

Under the policy, legal measures will be taken to achieve a balanced system for protecting the interest of the innovation without compromising public interest.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

France is expected to experience an explosion in the planting of genetically modified (GM) corn crops this year, according to a recent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) report.

The USDA Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN) study reported that the planting of French Bt corn crops is expected to grow from approximately 500 hectares (about 1,236 acres) in 2005 to 5,000 hectares (about 12,355 acres). According to the report, the reason for expanding the growth of genetically modified corn in France is the pervasive presence of the European corn borer moth in Southern France.

“Bt corn is viewed as providing an effective and profitable remedy against the European corn borer in this region, which contains almost a third of the total French corn acreage,” stated Marie-Cecile Henard, an agricultural economist at the Foreign Agricultural Service office in Paris.

The GAIN study also suggested that the historical rejection of agricultural biotechnology in Europe is slowly fading away, and consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods throughout the nations of Europe is not that far behind. We all know about the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling earlier this year, which stated that Europe had violated its trade rules by banning genetically modified food imports from 1999 to 2003, a ruling welcomed by the food industry in the United States that claimed the European Union (EU) ban cost them some $300 million a year in lost sales. The pro-GM lobby believes that overly stringent regulations in Europe, based on the public’s perception of the “dangers” of genetically modified foods rather than fact-based scientific evidence, resulted in the unnecessary rejection of new and significant genetically modified based products. The GAIN study, therefore, is welcome news for these biotech advocates.

Ms. Henard also states that more and more farmers in France are being won over by pro-GM arguments. She points out that while a Biotech Bill, which will set rules on genetically modified and non-GM crop coexistence, is still pending in the French parliament, farmers are adopting coexistence practices based on studies by the French corn growers association (AGPM) and the recommendation of seed companies.

Despite the GAIN report, high profile opponents of biotechnology and genetically modified foods in France have reaffirmed their commitment to continue to destroy fields that contain genetically modified crops. Thus far, these opponents have destroyed about 40 percent of genetically modified crop trials during the course of seven acts of sabotage, according to reports.

This GAIN study is good news. It shows that French farmers are seeing the benefits that genetically modified foods can bring, realizing they have the chance to increase their agricultural productivity, grow foods that are more nutritious, and combat pests that have damaged and destroyed their crops year after year. The country is also realizing the advantages that biotechnology and genetically modified foods can bring to individuals as well as to the French economy. It is a shame that anti-biotech advocates, like French radical farmer Jose Bove and other high-profile opponents, feel that GM crops are a “dangerous” and must be destroyed at all costs, when countless studies and research around the world have proven time and time again that genetically modified foods are safe.

Despite this opposition, I hope that France continues its efforts in planting genetically modified crops and that other countries in Europe start doing the same. As the Earth’s population continues to grow, biotechnology and genetically modified crops are going to be relied upon even more to feed and support individuals around the world, both now and in the future.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A great perspective on biotechnology and religion.

Alisa

The biotech culture clash: Embedded religious perspectives in East and West create distinct responses to genetic engineering
by Lee M. Silver
Science and Theology News via CheckBiotech
July 18, 2006

In the year 2000, my family and I spent nine months traveling across Asia. Since then I have traveled across most other areas of the world, most recently sub-Saharan Africa, talking to people about their spiritual beliefs and what they think about biotechnology in particular. I will describe my interpretations of what I saw and heard.

Differences in religious perspectives

If you look at the national law/political climate of embryonic research, you will notice three different areas: America, Europe (Mendocino, Calif., I include with Europe) and Asia. Asia, including Singapore, has a very liberal political climate when it comes to embryo research in contrast to the other two regions. Conversely, you get a very different picture in Europe and America on genetically engineered crops. In America you have positive national laws and political climate for genetically modified (GM) crops, whereas Europeans reject GM crops. And in Asia they accept GM. So you have these three different categorical responses to these two different technologies. Europe and America are essentially inverse, but Asia accepts everything.

All of Western culture is influenced greatly by Judeo-Christianity. The general idea we learn as children is that there is a master of the universe and there is a master plan. That’s what directs our future. If you reject the church, it is not uncommon, judging from people I have talked to, to transfer this belief in a higher power from a material God in the sky to the material Earth below. Mother Nature becomes the master of the universe with a master plan, which is what has happened in Europe.

Some polls show that 78 percent of Americans believe in a Christian version of God as presented in the Bible. Europe has become very different in its religious beliefs, in a very specific way. The number of people who have traditional Christian beliefs and attend church is way, way down. Instead, what is rising is a belief in a higher power. And so Europeans answered, “Yes” to the statement, “I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind.”

Asian culture and traditions are completely different from those in the West. Western spirits are discrete and static — you are given a soul, you die, you go to heaven as a distinct individual. On the other hand, Eastern spirits evolve. The idea is that all spirits start off in the simplest organism and then, during each life, a plant or animal gains karma. When the body grows old, the spirit leaves the worn-out body behind and jumps into a new one. This is a very different perception of the world.

Human or not human

My colleague Robert George, a politics professor at Princeton University and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, says in The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis: “The scientific evidence establishes the fact that each of us was from conception a human being. Science, not religion, vindicates this crucial premise of the pro-life claim.”

Is this really science? Or, is this just hidden theology? If early embryos are human beings, embryonic stem cell derivation is not only unethical, it’s murderous because you’re taking a human being apart and growing cells out of it. If early embryos are just a bunch of cells, embryo research is not really human research, it’s cell research. I would call it “ethically innocuous” as opposed to murder.

The claimed scientific evidence works as follows: At any moment during development, there’s no substantial change in the biology of the organism. Development is a continuous process — we know that. If we look at a baby, and then step back a nanosecond, she wouldn’t be substantially different. Then go back another nanosecond, and there’s no substantial change. It’s all continuous change. If you accept that, then any cutoff for defining human beings is arbitrary, because if you draw an absolute line, on either side of that line are going to be organisms that are substantially equivalent. Therefore, all lines are arbitrary. And since a baby is a human being, an embryo is also.

The problem with this argument is that it is based on an unstated assumption. We instinctively believe that a thing either is or is not a human being. We have this either/or perception of life. And if something is either a human being or not, then this argument stands, because any line you draw arbitrarily is going to separate two organisms that are biologically equivalent. So how could one be a human being and the other one not be a human being?

The theology of embryos

This assumption comes from an interpretation of Genesis made by certain religious groups that strictly follow the Bible. Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His own image.” And that is interpreted by some as meaning that God created man instantaneously. There can be no such thing as gradual creation, because then you have partial man, and man would not be in the image of God. There is no such thing as a partial God. God is absolute.

Embryonic stem cells can develop into an actual person. So, based on the definition of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, embryonic stem cells are equivalent to embryos. Yet based on the molecular signals that you give the cells, the cells can change from embryonic to nonembryonic and back to embryonic. You can do this easily.

So then you can ask, “How many human beings are there in a dish of embryonic stem cells?” If there are a million cells in the dish, and you separate all the cells, then you have a million human beings. But you can then put them back together to form a single organism. What happened to the 999,999 human beings? Robert George would say they all died. Scientists would say that this is not a scientific question, but a theological question. Science can’t answer the question because it is theological not scientific.

Genetically modified beliefs

Genesis 1:28–29 says, “God gave man dominion over every fish, bird, living creature and every seed-bearing plant.” What does that mean? It means that plants and animals exist for our benefit and that belief extends into the idea that genetic modification of plants and animals is not inherently unethical. It doesn’t mean that you might not worry about the effects on health or the environment, but that you use rational cost-benefit analyses to determine the legitimacy of any use of the technology.

Six of the top 10 countries producing GM crops in the year 2004 were in the Western Hemisphere, which is a traditionally Christian hemisphere. Europe has rejected GM crops, and so has Mendocino, Calif. China has rapidly advanced beyond the rest of the world.

The European proclamations all say, “We want to preserve Mother Nature. We don’t want your American genetically modified crops. We don’t want to harm Mother Nature.” Genetic engineering is seen as a violation of Mother Nature’s master plan.

The Europeans I have talked to couldn’t care less about human embryos, but don’t touch their crops, they say. The problem with this picture is that it is 99 percent artifice. There is almost nothing in Europe that is natural. Take the Loire Valley in France, for example. The corn growing there comes from Mexico; it doesn’t belong there. The weeds growing along the side of the fields weren’t growing there 1,000 years ago. They were selected by nature because they are able to grow alongside fields like that. None of the meadow trees were growing when Europe was forested — those trees can’t grow in the forest. All of this happened because of agriculture. Wild cattle, wolves, bears and all the other wild animals in Europe went extinct.

Western spirits are tightly bound to the material, either Jesus or the Earth. Eastern spirits are detachable. I went to cremation services all across India. The idea is that in this process, the spirit is going up to heaven and comes back down into another organism. In Buddhism, there is no single God and no master plan. As a consequence, the idea of playing god is meaningless.

China, India and Singapore — which is so tiny that people there don’t grow crops — upset the Western mindset entirely. Singapore would grow crops if it could. But embryos are tiny and the country has a huge embryo research effort going on. Moreover, they’re stealing a lot of scientists from America.

A woman I met in Sumatra, Indonesia, calls herself a Muslim, but her beliefs are purely Eastern. She says that she is reincarnated in her grandchildren. A quarter of her spirit goes into her grandchildren and other quarter portions of their spirits come from the other grandparents. And when I heard this, interpreted through her son, I realized that what she called spirits I would call genes.

Playing god only makes sense in the context of the traditional monotheism that prevails in America or the post-Christian monotheism of Mother Nature common in Europe. In Asian culture it doesn’t make sense, which is the reason why there’s no grassroots opposition there to either embryo research or genetically engineered crops. Western humanitarians and environmentalists who oppose the current reigning policies on biotechnology and hope to benefit humanity and the environment need to take a place at the discussion table. It can happen only if they can separate subliminal spiritual beliefs from scientific evidence and theory.

Lee M. Silver is a professor of molecular biology and public affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

This article is adapted from “Challenging Nature,” remarks delivered at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. Used with permission.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article about the possible launch of a GM sugar beet in the United States.

Alisa

EU approval rules GM beet launch in USA
by Mike Abram
Farmers Weekly
July 19, 2006

Germany's equivalent to Cereals 2006, DLG-Feldtage, was held near Frankfurt last week. The global nature of the sugar product market is driving the timetable for launching genetically modified sugar beet in the USA.

"In the USA, we are aiming at the worldwide first launch of genetically modified sugar beet in 2007," said Anja Matzk, head of biotechnology regulatory affairs for seed breeders KWS. "There is a huge demand of US farmers to grow Roundup Ready sugar beet.

"We have full permissions in the USA, but we prefer to wait until we have approval for food and feed use in Europe to fully launch."

Without that approval any sugar produced from GMO beet cannot be used in food or feed products destined for the EU. The approval might come in 2007, she said.

If it didnt come, the firm could look to extend the "channelling" process used with one sugar company.

Obviously we would prefer the approval was granted." Launching a GMO crop needs a totally different approach from conventional varieties, she pointed out.

You need to learn how market connections work, and think what countries you need approvals in.

Application for approval to grow GM sugar beet in the EU hadn't been submitted as yet. "I see a future [for GMO sugar beet] cultivation in the EU, she said.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article on the lifting of a ban on genetically modified foods in Australia.

Alisa

Australian farm group rethinks GM crops ban support
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
July 19, 2006

The New South Wales Farmers Association has withdrawn its support for a ban on genetically modified (GM) crops.

The association has passed a motion asking for the immediate lifting of the state's moratorium on GM crops.

Grain producer Michael Matthews says it is a victory for progressive farmers.

"This is a technology that we have to have to be able to compete on the world stage. Without this technology we're going to be sinking further and further behind," he said.

"This technology is all about producing greener crops, cleaner crops, healthier crops, crops grown with 70 per cent less herbicide and are more friendly to our environment.

"If we're not producing these crops, we're not going to be winning our spot on the supermarket shelves."

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An interesting article on how a certain biotech crop staple is helping South Africans.

Regards,
Alisa

Biotech white corn increases to South Africans' food security
By Dennis Avery
News By Us via CheckBiotech
July 17, 2006

Who says biotech crops help only big farmers?

In South Africa, small farmers have gained important food security by shifting to genetically modified varieties of their staple food, white corn, because it resists the corn borers that abound in South Africa’s sub-tropics. Biotech farmers have harvested more than a month’s worth of additional food for their families.

A recent study found that the Bt corn yielded four times as much grain as the farmers’ own saved seeds, and 21 to 62 percent more grain than an improved corn variety without the Bt. This was during a relatively dry year, when the yields were low enough to be critical for food security. The biotech corn also produced far more high-quality kernels.

In one relatively dry year, the South African farmers averaged 63 kg of corn per kg of their own saved corn seeds. They harvested 187 kg from each kg they planted of conventional improved corn seed, and a whopping 246 kg from each kg of biotech seed.

The Bt corn actually raises yields by a higher percentage during rain-abundant years, when the corn borers are more active. However, the yield gain is less critical to the farm family in the wetter, better-yielding years.

The additional yield is vitally important because a farm’s food shortfall must be covered by corn meal purchased from millers at much higher prices than the farmer usually gets for surplus grain.

The farmers judged that only about 15 percent of their corn from saved seed produced “excellent” kernels, and got just 23 percent “excellent” kernels from the conventional improved seed. The biotech corn, however, yielded 70 percent “excellent” kernels. The biotech variety isn’t particularly known for its tasty kernels, so it is likely that the farmers were heavily influenced by the lack of visible worm damage, or even the worms themselves, present in the corn meal.

Biotech corn contains a natural toxin engineered into its tissues—“Bt” or Bacillus Thuringiensis—which is dangerous to caterpillars but not to people. The Bt protects the corn from borers more effectively and safely than any sprayed insecticide. It is even one of the pesticides approved for organic farmers, and has been used safely for 50 years.

Since the biotech seed costs more than conventional seed corn, the farmer loses his additional investment in years when the borer pressure is light. However, South African farmers can’t easily predict when the borers will be bad. The borers attack according to a complex relationship involving rainfall, rainfall timing, and the maturity dates of the corn. Dry growing seasons generally have lighter borer infestations, but a dry planting season may turn into a wet growing season.

South African farmers are now planting more than a million acres per year to biotech crops, mostly corn, cotton and soybeans. Bethuel Gumede, a small farmer who plants cotton with the Bt gene, says, “I get enough yield with this type of new cotton—close to 30 to 40 bales on 3 hectares—that I’m able to pay school fees for my kids and to save some of the money so I can plant the next season.”

The higher yields from the biotech crops also mean it will take less farmland to feed and clothe Africa’s expanding human population in the years ahead—an important factor in protecting Africa’s unique wildlife.

Dennis Avery is a senior fellow for Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and is the Director for Center for Global Food Issues (www.cgfi.org). He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An interesting piece I came across recently about how biotechnology and genetically engineered crops are taking on a new role - in the clothing industry.

Enjoy,
Alisa

Biotech crop growers moving into clothing industry
The Associated Press
July 17, 2006

In a sneak peek of what could be fashion's future, leggy models draped in dresses by designers like Oscar de la Renta and Versace strut their stuff on the runway.

But this is no Paris or New York fashion show. Rather, the scene is a Toronto biotechnology conference and the dresses are made from a new fiber called Ingeo, made largely from genetically engineered corn.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization used the fashion statement last week to burnish its battered image as an environmental scourge.

Biotechnology is quietly playing a growing role in an apparel industry waking up to its customers' concerns about the environment and the country's reliance on the foreign oil used to make synthetic fabrics like polyester and nylon. But the trend is raising concerns among some environmental purists who oppose genetically engineered crops of any kind.

"Ingeo still supports genetically engineered crops and we really view it as a slippery slope," said Jill Dumain of Ventura, Calif.-based Patagonia Inc., which pays a premium to use only organic cotton in its clothes.

But other clothiers are developing biodegradable fabrics from natural fibers that have their start as genetically engineered crops.

Of course, cotton is still by far the most popular natural fiber. But chances are even the T-shirt you're wearing is made at least partly from genetically engineered crops. That's because 52% of cotton grown last year was genetically engineered with a bacteria gene to resist bugs without the need for pesticides, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Now, with more apparel manufacturers turning to Ingeo, more clothes on the rack will have gotten their start in a gene lab. Nearly half the nation's corn crops are genetically engineered to withstand sprayings of a popular weed killer.

NatureWorks, the Nebraska company that turns corn into Ingeo, said it doesn't separate the genetically engineered crop from the conventionally grown crop that comes into its factory. So there's a good chance that just about every Ingeo product is derived, at least in part, from genetically engineered corn.

"We think there is a tremendous future for it, particularly because the consumer world is starting to wake up and recognize that it makes sense to employ some of these different materials as an alternative to both energy and fabric," said Martin Dudziak, research director for Linda Loudermilk Inc., a designer making Ingeo clothes.

Depending on how it's finally used, the fiber can feel like cotton or polyester.

"It has all of the attributes of polyester," said Steve Davies of NatureWorks, "and is much more environmentally friendly."

Early next year, Linda Loudermilk will begin selling five different items, including jeans, made from Ingeo. Many other clothing companies, such as the sock maker Fox River Mills Inc. of Osage, Iowa, plan to follow suit.

Biotech's largely unseen hand in creating natural fibers has set off a debate among apparel makers who consider themselves environmentally sensitive. Many critics of agricultural biotechnology — from organic farmers to the Sierra Club — fear the engineered crops will co-mingle with conventionally grown plants.

Others draw a distinction between genetic engineering in food crops and those used in fashion.

"Would I prefer that the world was nothing but organic agriculture? Yes," said Leslie Hoffmann, director of the non-profit environmental group Earth Pledge, which hosted the Toronto fashion show and staged a similar event in April at the biotechnology industry's annual convention in Chicago.

"But on the other hand, (genetically engineered crops) have a much higher yield per acre and use less pesticides," she said.

There are even plans to develop for the U.S. market corn-based, disposable diapers that biodegrade quickly rather than filling landfills for decades. An Ingeo diaper is already being sold in Italy and Spain, but making an inexpensive diaper to compete with disposable products in the United States remains a hurdle.

NatureWorks makes the raw materials for Ingeo, fermenting sugar extracted from corn and turning it into plastic-like pellets that are made into the fabric sold to apparel makers like Linda Loudermilk.

Other uses for NatureWorks' pellets include the produce packaging found in Wal-Mart stores. But the small subsidiary of food and agricultural products company Cargill Inc. sees a big future cracking into the $181 billion apparel industry with its pellets.

NatureWorks declined to discuss Ingeo sales figures.

Because NatureWorks doesn't separate the genetically engineered corn from the conventionally grown corn, it can't serve companies who demand biotech-free Ingeo. For its European customers, who are notoriously averse to genetically engineered crops, the company promises to buy an amount of organic corn equal to the amount of corn it took to produce their Ingeo orders.

That still isn't enough for some environmental purists.

"They can't separate it," said Patagonia's Dumain, "and that's our problem."

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, I came across a very interesting commentary from The Times Kenya entitled “Biotechnology only solution to feed the world.” The piece reaffirms what scientists, researchers, and genetically modified food advocates have stated for years: that biotechnology holds tremendous promise for the world, especially for the developing world.

The commentary asserts that the use of genetically modified crops that are high-yielding, and disease and pest resistant will have a direct effect on the conservation of the environment, poverty alleviation, and improving food security in Africa and in other developing nations.

In many impoverished nations, farmers eke out very meager livings. According to the author, the ability to provide enough food for survival is often less than assured and the importance of staple crops, such as rice and cassava, can’t be overstated. Over 650 million of the world’s poorest people live in rural areas. Without sustainable agriculture, the author states, these individuals will have neither the resources nor the employment they need and require for a better life.

Agricultural biotechnology can help these farmers on so many levels. By developing crops that more efficiently absorb nutrients from the soil, biotechnology can help these farmers produce more on land already under cultivation. Biotech crops can also help decrease soil erosion because farmers won’t have to rely so much on tilling their fields and the development of plants that can grow in tough conditions may make it easier to farm marginal lands, helping to keep fragile soils such as wetlands and rain forests away from food production, according to the article.

The author also writes that in developing nations, biotechnology offers hope of improving the nutritional benefits to food varieties. Genetically modified foods bring direct health benefits to consumers through enhanced nutritional qualities including more and higher quality protein, lower levels of saturated fats, and increased minerals and vitamins. Biotechnology also helps to reduce the level of natural toxins and eliminate certain allergens like peanuts, wheat, and milk, making the products easier to consume for those who have specific allergies.

The article further explains that science and technology can contribute positively toward ending hunger in impoverished countries. In places like the United States, there is overwhelming support for initiatives aimed at increasing agricultural productivity, as well as for the use of biotechnology in addressing concerns of global food and nutritional security.

I agree wholeheartedly with the author’s comments. We have heard and seen the great promise that agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified foods have brought to the United States. Farmers embracing biotechnology have seen higher yields in their crops. Scientists and researchers using biotechnology have been able to produce a variety of foods that have numerous benefits. As the population of the world continues to grow, especially in developing countries, where having food on a daily basis is a problem, agricultural biotechnology can serve as a very powerful tool as well as a much needed solution. It holds such an importance in the world today. Nations and individuals around the world need to continue to support biotechnology, genetically modified foods, and the innovative developments the technology can bring in order to ensure a better life and a better future for all.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article I came across recently about how South African Farmers are increasing their planting of GM crops.

Alisa

South African (SA) farmers continue to increase GM plantings
CheckBiotech via Truth about Trade & Technology
July 13, 2006

South African farmers grew more than 1.2 million acres (480,000 hectares) of biotech corn, soybeans and cotton in 2005. Plantings have significantly increased each year since commercial-scale introduction in 1997, enabling these farmers to increase their incomes by US$56 million and reduce pesticide applications by 330,000 pounds (150,000 kg).

“This new cotton is good for me as a farmer, because the strong chemicals I normally used when I was planting the old cotton, I’m not using now,” says Bethuel Gumede, a South African grower who has planted genetically modified (GM) cotton since 2001.

“I get enough yield with this type of new cotton – close to 30 to 40 bales on 3 hectares – that I’m able to pay school fees for my kids and to save some of the money so I can plant the next season,” continues Gumede in an exclusive video interview and podcast at Monsanto Company’s Conversations about Plant Biotechnology Web site.

Gumede, a father of seven, believes one of the greatest benefits of GM crops is increased income for his family and his children’s school fees. “To me it is very important to be able to afford school fees because I see education as much more important than anything. I will be glad if, in the future, my kids will be able to go to university. And, I’m looking to my land to pay for all of that.”

Conversations about Plant Biotechnology was initially launched in October 2005 and – within the next few weeks – will feature its first redesign. The site will incorporate a state-of-the-art online video player, cutting-edge video distribution system, and more flexible, simpler navigation. The changes will make it simpler and faster for visitors to view this short, online video of Gumede, as well as videos with more than 20 other farmers and families who grow GM crops and five experts who have researched and studied the technology.

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

An interesting commentary on how scientists are developing genetically modified wheat crops that are drought tolerant. Hope you find it very informative.

Alisa

Engineering Drought Tolerance
by Robert Wager
The Globe and Mail
July 13, 2006

Without water there is no life. Agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of the world's freshwater usage, even though almost 80 per cent of the world's agriculture is non-irrigated and therefore relies solely on rainfall.

Here in Canada, we are fortunate to have vast amounts of freshwater. Still some Canadian farmers have serious water issues. Rain and snowfall account for a large percentage of the water required to grow crops on the prairies. For several years parts of Canada have experienced lower precipitation and now have drought conditions.

So what can we do about it? Contrary to popular myths we cannot control the weather. Therefore we are left with manipulating the crops to better deal with drought conditions when they arise. On average it takes 1,000 litres of water to grow one kilogram of wheat. What if we could create a genetically engineered (GE) variety of wheat that only required 200 litres per kilogram?

Around the world scientists are working at developing drought resistant crops. Researchers in Egypt are field testing a variety of wheat containing a gene from barley. This genetically engineered (GE) wheat cultivar requires one eighth as much water as its conventional counterpart. At present this transgenic (produced by genetic engineering) wheat is undergoing bio-safety assessments in preparation for commercialization. Undoubtedly some Canadian farmers will be very interested in this drought tolerant wheat.

The publicly-funded International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) has been involved with crop improvements since the green revolution. Both transgenic and traditional breeding approaches to crop improvements are used. A drought tolerant transgenic wheat variety is being evaluated and may be ready for commercialization within five years. However, an interesting twist has been discovered with this research project.

It seems that under drought conditions the transgenic wheat does better than non-transgenic varieties, but under adequate water conditions the transgenic wheat performs less well. Therefore researchers are looking for ways to control when the transgene (gene engineered into a crop) is turned on.

There has been some excellent research looking at controlling pieces of DNA, called promoters, which will only turn genes on under specific environmental conditions. Using this controlling DNA is a type of genetic use restriction technology (or GURT). Although critics of GE crops have been very active fighting the advancement of GURT research, Canada is one of a select number of countries that has called for more research into using these technologies to improve crops.

Further, the use of another type of GURT would stop the unwanted movement of the drought tolerance trait itself. Using this type of GURT the pollen or seed of the drought tolerant crop would be sterile so there would be no transfer of the drought resistance into other crops or natural weed populations.

Monsanto is a world leader in agricultural biotechnology research and drought tolerance is going to be a popular trait in their future crop varieties. A look at one of their research facilities shows long hallways filled with growth chambers containing drought tolerant crops in various stages of development. One particular drought tolerant corn variety is moving through the regulatory pipeline and may be ready for commercialization as early as 2010.

Under drought conditions this variety has shown a 20 bushel yield advantage over non-transgenic corn varieties. To give some perspective, the highly successful insect resistant corn varieties give between 6-14 bushels per acre yield advantages. There is little doubt farmers across North America will be very interested in these new drought tolerant corn varieties once they have passed all the regulatory evaluations required for commercialization.

The most popular type of genetically engineered crop grown around the world is engineered to be herbicide tolerant. Growing these crops results in excellent weed control and at the same time allows the farmers to practice reduced or zero tillage agriculture. The benefits have been well documented. By reducing the amount of ploughing, soil erosion and the loss of soil moisture to evaporation are greatly reduced. Therefore, growing this type of GE crop also helps with water conservation.

The other big players in agriculture biotechnology are also heavily investing in drought tolerance research. Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Dupont all have extensive research programs in this area. At this point no one knows how many drought tolerant transgenic crops China has in development. But we can be confident it is quite a few as China has three times as many transgenic crops in development as the United States. The adoption rate of agricultural biotechnology is fastest in developing world.

If the current trend of climate change continues there will undoubtedly be shifts in precipitation patterns around the world. Those areas that rely on rain water for agriculture may be at risk. Along with newer drip irrigation systems, agri-forestry, and traditional plant breeding, genetic engineering of drought tolerance will play an important role in maintaining food production with less water.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a great article on how genetically modified rice is helping Chinese Farmers.

Regards,
Alisa

Genetic Rice Gives Good Dividends to Chinese Farmers
AgBioView & Business Recorder
July 14, 2006

The genetically modified rice provided to Chinese farmers has paid dividends as they succeeded in have their production cost reduced, improving per acre yield, and reducing use to pesticides to zero level, according to a report published in journal 'Science' last week.

Scientists in Tando Jan Sindh Agriculture University evince national interest and are of the opinion that its health and safety should be examined before cultivating genetically modified rice.

The study, conducted by American and Chinese scientists who have long backed the crops, comes as the Chineseb government is deciding whether to approve the sale of genetically modified rice, which would make China the first nation to adopt biotechnology crops in one of the world's leading food staples.

Despite advocacy's by Green Peace volunteers, scientists continue experimenting with genetically modified rice, which plans to seep into the food system.

Supporters who claim that genetically modified crops had no scientific proof of health threats hope that if China approves the altered rice, that endorsement might alleviate health and environmental concerns.

In China, genetically modified rice is approved for use only in designated experiments. Green Peace advocates said two weeks ago that they had purchased bags of the rice in seed markets, and called on the government to stop the rice from spreading more widely into the food supply. Green Peace still insists that the rice could possibly be harmful, as its long-term effects were unknown. The Chinese government said it was investigating whether the rice entered the food supply in Hubei Province, a rice-producing region.

The 'Science' study did not address whether genetically modified rice could be harmful to people if eaten. But it did say the rice was probably better for farmers: genetically modified rice cut pesticide use by as much as 80 percent. The altered rice has a gene that acts as its own insecticide.

Reduced pesticide use would allow farm incomes to rise, the study said. "We estimate that if 90 percent of the farmers plant GM rice, then the annual agricultural income of China will increase by $4 billion," said Huang Jikun, an author of the paper and director of the Agriculture Policy Research Centre at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. Some experts, however, say the Chinese government may not approve genetically modified rice this year because of safety concerns.

Posted by AC Baumer at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article on genetically modified potatoes that produce vaccines.

Regards,
Alisa

GM Potato Crops to Produce Vaccines
WorldGrower
July 13, 2006

German researchers obtained this year permission to plant genetically-modified potatoes that produce vaccines and proteins on an outdoor plantation

University of Rostock scientists aim to plant three rows of the GM crop on 2,200m2 in Gross Luesewitz, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, over the next two years.

The scientists intend to grow one row of potatoes containing a non-toxic cholera protein that is already used as an auxiliary substance in immunisations against cholera and similar illnesses. They aim for a second row to produce elements of a vaccine against a type of rabbit disease. The third line will produce a special protein that could be used as a raw material in the chemical industry.

The Federal Office for Consumer Protection gave the go-ahead to produce up to 9,440 of the plants. It insists the tests are not dangerous to humans or the environment. It added that the plantation will be fenced to stop wild animals from eating or carrying off the crops and claims that, once the potatoes have been analysed, they will be destroyed.

German environmental protection organisation BUND blasted the project. It criticised it from an environmental point of view as well as asserting that genetically modified crops pose a threat to industry and jobs.

A spokesman for BUND said only around 500 jobs exist in the privately financed genetic-engineering sector compared to 150,000 jobs in the organic-farming sector.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article on how scientists have developed a genetically modified sugarcane that is resistant to disease and pests.

Alisa

Indian scientists develop pest resistant transgenic sugarcane varieties
The Hindu
July 10, 2006

In a major breakthrough, scientists at the Coimbatore-based premier Sugarcane Breeding Institute (SBI) have developed transgenic varieties, which are resistant to the dreaded red-rot disease and borer pests.

"We have also started identifying the genes resistant to the red-rot and pests from indigenous sugarcane species, particularly from the wild, in collaboration with the New Delhi-based National Research for Plant Biotechnology (NRPB)," the SBI director Dr. N Vijayan Nair said.

Dr. Nair said they had earlier bred transgenic plants using the imported genes to check the deadly diseases and pests in sugarcane.

They would be tested under the specially-built glass houses for their efficacy. The indigenous gene identification has also picked up momentum, with India having no transgenic varieties so far.

"Red-rot is a major fungal disease and we used anti-fungal genes drawn from other plant sources such as alfalfa plant for glucanase and paddy plant for chitenase and Dahlia flowers for anti-microbial peptides for developing the transgenic varieties," said the Institute's crop improvement division's principal scientist Dr. N Subramonian.

The scientists developed the transgenic varieties by bombarding the genes with a particle gun into the subject sugarcane plant known for very high sucrose yield such as COC-671 and screened them for red-rot disease resistance.

The scientists had also been developing borer-resistant varieties using bacillus turungienses (BT) genes, which are known to have insecticidal properties.

Tested in a proteus inhibitor, the new varieties were found to have moderate resistance to top borers. The scientists have now tested them with bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor using aprotinin for its efficacy, Dr Subramonian said.

"We are also sparing no effort to identify and isolate anti-microbial genes to develop peptides from other plant resources to inhibit red-rot," he added.

Brazilian and Australian scientists have now engaged in similar task on some other aspects such as increasing sucrose content and other parametres while in India the focus is on eliminating the pests and diseases.

Various plant breeding strategies failed to achieve cent per cent result in checking the red-rot disease, which had been claiming an estimated 10 to 12 per cent crop loss and the borer pests 15 per cent.

"We cannot rule out the possibility of the red-rot disease striking the sugarcane crop despite developing susceptible/resistant varieties which break down after a few years and hence the transgenic programme," Dr Nair said. </