GMO Food for Thought

In many developing nations around the world, small-scale farmers often rely upon poultry farming solely for their livelihood. Unfortunately, for many of these farmers, this livelihood has been affected by the Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV), a contagious and fatal viral disease that infects a wide range of both domestic and wild birds, including chickens. NDV also has a devastating effect on commercial poultry production. Since vaccines for poultry are too costly for these farmers who eke out very meager livings, a cost effective solution needed to be developed. Fortunately, researchers in Mexico have done just that.

Researchers in Mexico have been able to genetically modify maize crops to create an edible vaccine for poultry against the Newcastle Disease Virus. The researchers, including Octavio Guerrero-Andrade of the Center for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV) in Guanajuato, inserted a gene from the Newcastle Disease Virus into the maize crops’ DNA. Chickens that ate the genetically modified (GM) maize produced antibodies against the virus. The maize also provided a level of protection against infection comparable to that of commercial vaccines.

The researchers’ findings were published online in Transgenic Research earlier this month. They hope these genetically modified maize crops can help small-scale poultry farmers protect their flocks from NDV.

“The disease is important and a big killer,” said Frands Dolberg of the Network for Smallholder Poultry Development, which works with partners in developing countries to promote poultry farming as a way of improving livelihoods.

According to the findings, vaccines against the disease that can be given to poultry through food already exist, but are not usually available in the small quantities that are often required by single families or villages.

“There is a big problem in delivering the vaccine to the many millions of poor poultry keepers around the world, and the genetically modified (GM) maize could be a possibility,” said Frands Dolberg.

Farmers in developing nations struggle every day to make a living against unfavorable conditions. They also struggle to access new technologies that can help better their lives, including getting vital vaccines that can save their poultry farms. With this genetically modified maize that the researchers in Mexico have developed, these needed vaccines will be easily accessible, less costly, and won’t require refrigeration like traditional vaccines do. It will ultimately help save and secure the farmers’ futures.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article regarding a report on the future of biotechnology.

Alisa

USDA issues biotechnology report: Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology: The Decade Ahead
USDA via SeedQuest
August 31, 2006

Deputy Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner announced today that a report about the future of biotechnology is available to the public.

Prepared by USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), "Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology: The Decade Ahead" describes the advances in agricultural biotechnology's first decade and discusses a range of topics related to agricultural biotechnology that may be addressed by the secretary over the next decade.

"We are pleased to get this report and thank those involved for their interest and efforts. This consensus report, from a diverse group of stakeholders who express different perspectives, will be important in helping us understand the evolving landscape for agricultural biotechnology," said Conner.

The AC21 was established in 2003 to examine how biotechnology is likely to change agriculture and USDA's work over the long term. The 20-member committee represents a wide spectrum of views and interests and is composed of farmers, technology providers, academics, representatives from the food manufacturing and shipping industries, and representatives from consumer and environmental organizations. The committee meets in public session three to four times per year.

The web site for the AC21, which contains all the committee's reports and information about its meetings, can be accessed at: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oc/design/test/biotech/ac21.html.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a very interesting post by a fellow blogger defending China's GM crops from anti-GM bloggers and environmentalist groups like Greenpeace.

Enjoy !
Alisa

Anti-GM gloaters
Skeptico Blog via AgBioWorld
8/30/06

It never fails to amaze me how much the anti-Genetic Modification (GM) crowd love to gloat at any problems (real or perceived) with GM crops. Reader Paul sent me a link to this Science Blogs Effect Measure article claiming GM cotton resistant to bollworm planted in China, is proving to be “a curse”, since other pests have grown stronger:

Genetically modified cotton resistant to bollworm is a reality and five million Chinese cotton farmers have embraced it. It works, too, killing bollworm larvae that used to kill their cotton. IN the late 1990s it looked like a miracle. Pesticide use was cut by 70%. After seven years, though, the miracle is looking more like a curse because new pests called mirids have rushed into the pest vacuum and taken up shop.

To read more, go to http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/08/gm_cotton_china.html

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article on a new collaboration regarding different uses for soybeans, including genetic modification and biofuels.

Best,
Alisa

Soybeans sprout new alliance
By Rachel Melcer
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
August 30, 2006

Bunge North America Inc., based in Maryland Heights, and DuPont's Agriculture and Nutrition group are teaming up to see just how much can be squeezed from a soybean.

The companies, which three years ago formed St. Louis-based Solae Co. to improve soy foods and created the Bunge DuPont Biotech Alliance, said Tuesday their focus is moving beyond human food.

The biotech alliance will find ways soybeans can yield oils for industrial use, greater quantities of biodiesel fuel and more nutritious animal feed, said Erik Fyrwald, group vice president of DuPont Agriculture and Nutrition. Resulting products will carry a new brand name, Treus -- pronounced TREE-us..

With about 20 people based at Bunge's headquarters, the alliance will draw upon each founder's expertise:

•DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. subsidiary, based in Des Moines, Iowa, will sort seed to find and breed those with optimal end-use traits, as well as adding other useful qualities through genetic engineering.

•DuPont is working to develop improved and more economical biofuels, including soybean-based biodiesel.

•Bunge, which operates grain elevators, oilseed-processing plants, refineries for edible oils and packaging facilities, will help refine processing methods and identify customers.

Solae, a $1.1 billion company that brings improved soy protein food products to market, may be among the alliance's customers. In particular, it would be interested in soybeans genetically modified for higher content of healthy Omega 3 fatty acids, Fyrwald said.

In soybean-based food, fuel and fiber, "We just see a critically big opportunity for growth," Fyrwald said.

"At a time when there's so much market opportunity and so much technology, collaborating to bring things to market quickly and leverage others' expertise with your own is an essential ingredient to success," he added.

Bunge and DuPont are not alone in seeing green in soybeans.

Monsanto Co. of Creve Coeur, the world's leading developer of biotech crops, is pursuing many of the same targets. Other competitors are Syngenta AG, a Swiss agribusiness, and Bayer CropScience of Raleigh, N.C., a unit of German conglomerate Bayer AG.

Soybean growers, too, are promoting novel and increased uses of their crop. The United Soybean Board funds research and marketing efforts. Grower cooperatives are among producers and innovators in biofuels.

Bob Callanan, spokesman for the Creve Coeur-based American Soybean Association, said growers welcome any effort to improve soybeans and their market. But it is unclear how much the Bunge-DuPont alliance will accomplish.

The alliance's only product so far, soybeans with low-linolenic oil that ultimately reduce harmful trans fats in food, were planted on 35,000 acres in 2005 when they were introduced. This year 200,000 acres were planted and next year that will more than double, Fyrwald said.

The alliance product pipeline includes soybeans genetically modified to further reduce the need for trans fat-producing hydrogenation of packaged foods -- and, in early testing, is proving useful as an environmentally friendly industrial oil, Fyrwald said.

The alliance also is developing biotech soybeans with improved protein content, which boosts the nutritional and monetary value of an animal feed co-product of biodiesel production. Another effort seeks to increase overall yield per acre.

"We're still very focused on nutrition," said Troy Hobbs, alliance business manager. "But we're also focused on sustainability … and functionality."

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

Here's an article on the launch of an annual biotech meeting in Asia.

Alisa

India announces launch of Asia biotech meeting
The Hindu
August 30, 2006

Noting that the biotechnology industry in Asia is still at a nascent stage, India has announced the launch of an annual 'Asia Biotech' meet, bringing together scientists and biotechnology experts who will focus mostly on the needs of the people of the region.

"Most of Asia is largely an agricultural community so agricultural biotechnology is necessary for food security," Minister of Science and Technology Kapil Sibal said adding that the experts would also focus on health security.

The launching of the annual meeting was announced by Sibal at the fourth Asean informal ministerial meeting on Science and Technology, held at Kuatan in Pahang state.

The meet is modelled on the lines of the 'Biotechnology Conference' held annually in the United States. Next year's meeting will be held at Boston.

The Asia Biotech conference will be held in rotation across Asean plus six nations viz China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. The first conference will be held at New Delhi in November 2007.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article on the latest developments of a genetically modified rice to help people around the world with vitamin A deficiency.

Regards,
Alisa

Africa: Scientists, environmentalists want vitamin A rice
By Josephine Maseruka
All Africa
August 30, 2006

Scientists are working round the clock to develop the much needed acceptable rice variety with Vitamin A that can help the 400 million people in the world at risk of vitamin A deficiency.

The first African Rice Congress held in Dar es Salaam early August heard that between 100 and 200 million children are affected by severe vitamin A deficiency of whom 50 million are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Records also show that 1.3 million to 2.5 million pre-school children die annually because of vitamin A deficiency. In developing nations, where Uganda falls, vitamin A deficiency is responsible for 250,000 cases of blindness every year.

Vitamin A deficiency is also a leading cause of early child death, diarrhoea, measles, pneumonia and a major risk factor for pregnant and lactating women. The alarming situation has led to attempts by European scientists to develop rice varieties with vitamin A.

Dr. Ingo Portrykus, a professor of science at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer of the University of Freeburg in Germany have developed the Golden Rice with high levels of Beta-carotene, which is converted to vitamin A in the body. Two genes were taken from a plant called daffodil and a third gene from bacterium which were introduced into rice through genetic engineering to get rice with vitamin A.

Dr. G.S. Khush of California University told the congress that the goal for the genetic engineering was to improve the rice nutritional content to fight the growing rate of malnutrition, especially among people who derive most of their calories from rice.

Khush said the invention was also aimed at lowering the risk degree of vitamin A deficiency and healthy problems that result from it.

The International Rice Research Institute Director P. Anderson said, 'Vitamin A is necessary for the poor. We cannot reach the very many of the malnourished in the world. Rice with vitamin A can be a suitable alternative.'

However, the Golden Rice has already met stiff resistance from scientists and environmentalists. They argue that 300gm of Golden Rice can provide at most 20% of adult's daily dose of vitamin A and since pre-school children consume less than 150gm of rice daily, Golden Rice would only supply a little 10% of the required vitamin A daily.

Others have reasoned that vitamin A can be obtained from liver, milk, butter, egg yolk, chicken, meat while Beta-carotene can be got from dark green vegetables, spinach, carrot, pumpkin and mango, which can be taken in small quantities.

There are already attempts to get vitamin A through orange sweet potatoes, which are affordable to small farmers and the rural poor.

Health experts argue that Golden Rice if taken by people who have rice as a staple food, could lead to excessive intake of vitamin A among those who do not suffer from vitamin A deficiency.

Excessive vitamin A can lead to hypervitaminosis or vitamin A toxicity which leads to abdominal pain, vomiting and dizziness. Daffodil is responsible for allergic reaction that manifests as a rash.

Environmentalists insist that they need proof that there are no serious environmental consequences to the ecology from the Golden Rice and that it won't have adverse effect or risk on people's health.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article I came across about some dramatic changes in Romania, a country that has accepted genetically modified foods and crops but will have to change once it joins the European Union in 2007.

Regards,
Alisa

No biotech beans for you
By Gil Gullickson
Agriculture Online
August 29, 2006

Imagine how you'd feel if you suddenly had to go back to planting conventional soybeans because you could not plant glyphosate-tolerant soybeans.

Well, that's the situation farmers in Romania are in. This southeastern European country is slated to join the European Union (EU) on Jan. 1, 2007. When it does, farmers won't be able to plant biotechnology crops, such as Roundup Ready soybeans.

As in the United States, a vast majority of soybeans raised in Romania are glyphosate-tolerant. For example, Romanian farmers planted 85,000 hectares (210,035 acres) of Roundup Ready soybeans in 2005. However, EU mandates will prevent these farmers from raising them in 2007 when Romania joins the EU.

"Overall reaction (by the Romanian public) is positive for joining the EU, but farmers are afraid," says Cristina Cionga, agricultural specialist with the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service in Bucharest and a Romanian native.

We recently visited with Cionga and three fellow Romanian agricultural scientists and their host, Paul Weller, president of Agri/Washington, Washington, D.C. One of the reasons the group is touring the United States is to give farmers back in Romania ideas on how U.S. farmers have communicated benefits of raising biotech crops to the general public and policy makers.

Like U.S., farmers, Romanian farmers readily accepted biotech crops. "They love the technology," says Cionga.

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans were first brought to Romania in 1999 and controlled severe weed problems in soybeans that existed before that time. Without access to glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, Romanian farmers will be stymied when it comes to growing soybeans in 2007.

They aren't giving up, though. A group of the nation's largest soybean growers are organizing and lobbying to gain provisional authority from the EU to grow them. Although it may be too late to grow them in 2007, the group that visited with us is hopeful provisional authority may be granted in 2008.

One of the points the Romanian visitors hope to gain from their visit is how U.S. commodity groups work. The visitors are especially enthralled by commodity checkoffs and how agribusiness supports commodity groups and farmers.

"We've learned about the resources that are available and how commodity groups communicate to the public about biotechnology," says Cionga.

The Romanians will take what they have learned in the U.S. to give Romanian farmers an idea how to rally support for biotech crops. "These farmers are credible and they would be believed," says Cionga.

Romanian agriculture

Besides soybeans, Romanian farmers raise even more corn and wheat. Romanian farmland is excellent, with rich, black soils.

Romanians are interested in biofuels, as some biodiesel plants have been built in the country. Ironically, biotech beans can be imported and crushed at these plants, but Cionga and Weller pointed out that farmers will not be able to grow them when Romania joins the EU. There are no ethanol plants on line to consume the nation's corn.

Like other countries in Eastern Europe, Romania has undergone a transformation since agriculture was decentralized in 1989.

"We started from scratch learning about markets," says Cionga. "All state units were dismantled and land went back to previous owners and their heirs. Even now, there are trials in court fighting over land. Property rights are not fully enforced."

The nation's largest farmers are a lot like U.S. farmers in that they rent a much of their land. "These farmers will own about 10% of what they farm, and lease the rest," says Cionga.

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

Here's a great article on a collaboration on a new therapeutic proten made from genetically modified tobacco plants.

Alisa

Therapeutic proteins from GE tobacco plants: Chlorogen gets lucky in Kentucky
By Rachel Melcer
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
August 29, 2006

David Duncan, chief executive of Chlorogen Inc., said a fortuitous turn of events brought his company a partner that could shave years off the development of an ovarian cancer drug.

Chlorogen, based in Creve Coeur, has genetically engineered tobacco plants to grow a therapeutic protein -- and had planned to build a plant in Cape Girardeau to extract and purify it. But a new company, Kentucky Bioprocessing LLC, or KBP, was formed in March around a plant-based protein processing facility in Owensboro, Ky., it bought from bankrupt Large Scale Biology Corp.

KBP's contract processing capabilities and expertise are a perfect fit for Chlorogen, Duncan said. With its help, Chlorogen could save a year or two in product development -- along with $4 million it would have invested in an $18 million facility at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau.

"It was extremely fortuitous," Duncan said. "Very rarely do you get lucky in this business, but we (did)."

The success of Chlorogen, a company at the cutting edge of the fledgling "biopharming" industry that genetically modifies plants to produce useful proteins, is good for Missouri, say economic development officials.

But Chlorogen's good luck is bad news for Southeast Missouri State, which had looked forward to being the company's processing base, said Mike Mills, deputy director of the Department of Economic Development.

The Chlorogen facility would have anchored a research center listed among projects for funding through Gov. Matt Blunt's Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative. The initiative -- which would use proceeds from the sale of assets of Missouri's student loan authority to fund capital research and commercialization projects at state universities -- stalled in the Legislature in March. Blunt's plan to revive it was revealed Saturday.

If Southeast Missouri State goes ahead with construction, Chlorogen might put its facility to limited use, Duncan said. But his venture capital-backed startup can't justify investing time and money in a new plant when the KBP alternative is available.

KBP, a subsidiary of Owensboro Medical Health System, was formed to develop drugs while contributing to that region's economy. It is part of a Kentucky focus on finding alternative uses for its large tobacco crop, Duncan said.

"That is a major strategic thrust" that fits well with Chlorogen's business, he said. "Nothing against Missouri, but Kentucky just had that going for it."

Chlorogen will remain a Missouri-based company, and continue to use greenhouses at the University of Missouri's Delta Research Center in Portageville to grow crops, Duncan said.

But those tobacco plants will be shipped to KBP. If the research collaboration goes well, KBP will conduct Chlorogen's protein extraction, purification and development into a marketable drug, he said.

"The hope is that we'd get to that point," Duncan said. Early-stage work already under way "is where we find out if they've got the capability that we think they do. We'll put that to the test."

KBP's relationship with Brown Cancer Center in Louisville also could lead Chlorogen to conduct clinical trials there, augmenting a deal the firm has with St. Louis University School of Medicine, Duncan said.

Hugh Haydon, chairman of KBP, said his company includes former employees of Large Scale Biology, biopharming pioneers who developed the processing plant. He believes it is the only facility and team in the world that has produced plant-made proteins for commercial sale.

Large Scale Biology couldn't afford the high cost of drug development. KBP is a contract manufacturer, with no products of its own.

"We've done a lot of different kinds of projects in a lot of different kinds of plants," Haydon said, but he would not reveal other clients.

With Chlorogen, "we are very excited about the opportunity that the relationship has," he said. "We appreciate their confidence and we hope that we can help them to succeed -- because If we do that, we succeed, too."

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article about the latest developments over genetically modified foods in California.

Alisa

Legislation would allow gene-modified seeds
San Jose Mercury News
August 26, 2006

A bill that would prevent local governments from banning genetically modified seeds is one step away from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk after passing both houses of the Legislature with bipartisan support.

Senate Bill 1056 by Sen. Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, would place seed regulation under the exclusive control of the state.

Four counties -- Marin, Mendocino, Trinity and Santa Cruz -- have established bans on bio-engineered crops and would be exempt from the bill.

Opponents of genetically engineered food say its potential health and environmental effects have not been adequately studied.

Supporters of Florez's bill say existing state and federal laws already provide adequate oversight of genetically modified crops.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an good article regarding the support of biotechnology in Oregon.

Alisa

Genetically modified crops get tentative support
Oregon News Review
August 25, 2006

The future of biopharming in Oregon may fall under state regulation instead of federal oversight if the recommendations of a committee on genetically modified crops are followed.

Regulation of biopharming crops, like other genetically modified organisms, falls to an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. State agricultural officials are given notice of permit applications for field trials but have no authority over them.

A failed bill in the 2005 Legislature sought a four-year state moratorium on biopharming, which involves growing crops with genes that have been altered to create pharmaceuticals.

No such crops are currently under cultivation in Oregon but field trials in other states have provoked debate over the risks and benefits.

A 10-member committee, composed of state agricultural and health officials and scientists, was created last year and has been meeting monthly since November.

On Thursday, it released the recommendations for public comment. Members will meet in late September, then make a final report to Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

The committee said research and production of plants that yield medicines should be encouraged, provided that the state can exercise more controls to protect conventional crops and public health.

Benefits include the potential for large-scale production of medications at low cost and introduction of vaccines into food crops. However, opponents fear the modified crops could contaminate food supplies or provoke allergic reactions through pollen.

Steve Strauss, an Oregon State University forestry professor and authority on genetic tree engineering, is one of the committee’s members. He said biopharming holds great potential for public benefit, but the state needs to have a bigger role.

“Unless some clear process is in place, we don’t want to see pharmaceuticals out of doors in food crops,” he said.

The recommendations of the committee include:

— Encourage biopharming as a possible area of investment in technology. The state’s mild growing season and established greenhouse and nursery industry give it competitive advantage over other states.

— Formalize an agreement with the USDA over regulating such crops, including allowing veto rights to state officials.

— If biopharming crops are grown outdoors, encourage that they not be consumed by humans or animals. Also, require posting of a financial guarantee in case of crop contamination or human exposure.

The committee's recommendations can be found at: http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/biopharm.shtml.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a very interesting article on how biotechnology is aiding in the development of pharmaceuticals.

Alisa

Pharmaceuticals from plants
By Sushmi Dey
Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Limited via Express Pharma
August 25, 2006

Advances in biotechnology aided in the production of therapeutic proteins essential in a wide range of pharmaeuticals like monoclonal antibodies, enzymes and blood proteins.

Since the demand for these biopharmaceuticals is expected to increase, researchers all over the world are looking at ways to ensure that they will be available at significantly larger amounts and on a cost-effective basis. One such solution comes in the form of plant-made pharmaceuticals (PMPs), which are cheap to produce and store, easy to scale up for mass production and safer than those derived from animals.

The plus factor

The use of plants for medicinal purpose dates back to thousands of years, but genetic engineering of plants to produce desired biopharmaceuticals is a much more recent phenomenon. In normal circumstances, drugs are synthesised through strong chemical reactions or taken from natural sources such as texol or curcumin. The conventional system in place for the production of commercial protein has relied on microbial fermentation and mammalian cell lines. But according to studies, these systems have disadvantages in terms of cost, scalability, and safety that have promoted research into alternatives.

PMPs are a category of pharmaceutical proteins that are produced in 'live plants'. These live plants are genetically modified to produce drugs. "Plants can produce large amount of proteins in them," says Dr V Siva Reddy, Group Leader, Plant Transformation Group, ICGEB. Plants can express a protein in a very profitable manner by manipulation of genes or by the introduction of genes required to express a particular protein. Hence, pharmaceuticals can be produced in large quantity, and purity can be expressed in high levels.

Plants have emerged as one of the most promising general production platform for biologics. Plants allow cost-effective production of recombinant proteins on an agricultural scale, while eliminating risks of product contamination with endotoxins or human pathogens. In addition, with the use of plants in the production of recombinant protein, vaccine candidates can be expressed in edible plant organs, allowing them to be administered as unprocessed or partially processed material. However, in matters of efficacy, they are equivalent to the conventional drugs, informs Reddy.

Technology behind PMPs

In the process of producing PMPs, plants themselves act as factories to manufacture therapeutic proteins. Special proteins or compounds are expressed in different parts of plants, some specific tissues, such as whole leaves, whole seeds, or even specific regions of seeds or leaves. The whole process is meant to incorporate the desired foreign gene into the genome of the plant to create a transgenic plant. "It is preferred to produce those pharmaceuticals, which are protein, carbohydrate or lipid based, specifically those which can be expressed and stored in roots, seeds or small inclusion bodies in the cell," explains the Director of Department of Biotechnology (DBT). After the plants are harvested, they go through a series of processing steps that extract, separate, purify and package the therapeutic proteins.

The production of the desired protein in a plant requires a number of complicated molecular biology techniques, where the propriety promoter is fused to the gene of the target protein, forming an expression cassette. With these transgenic techniques, the proprietary expression cassette is introduced into plant cells. The transformed cells are then cultured as suspension cells or regenerated as transgenic plants. High protein expressers are selected and used for protein production. The refined therapeutic proteins are ultimately used as active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) in many life-saving medicines and are regulated by the FDA.

In PMPs, plants are the factory or storehouse, where proteins, that will be used in subsequent manufacture of medicines, as the API in a pharmaceutical product, are produced. The normal techniques of extraction, purification and formulation, which are used in normal pharmaceutical companies, are all followed even in the case of PMPs. Though therapeutic proteins produced in PMP field trials are usually not intended to be administered via food, some of the PMPs can be taken orally, while some have to be injected.

Production platforms

There are several plant-based protein production platforms that rely on protein expression from nuclear genes and viral vectors in leaf, seed, tuber and tissue culture cells. However, each of the platforms has its own strengths and weaknesses. Crops such as corn, tobacco, rice, soy, wheat, barley and maize are genetically altered to yield proteins in different parts of the plant. Scientists prefer to opt for genetically modified food crops because of the good understanding of genetics, agronomics and environmental impact of the crops.

Leafy crops are advantageous in terms of biomass yield, but since proteins expressed in such leaves tends to be unstable, the harvested material has a limited shelf life and therefore, must be processed immediately after harvest. However, proteins that are expressed in cereal seeds are protected from proteolytic degradation. Hence, such proteins can be preserved for three years at room temperature and for at least three years at refrigerator temperature without much loss of activity. Prodigene, an industry leader in cereal based protein production has chosen Maize because of its high biomass yield.

Yet another plant group which is considered as good hosts for protein production are oil crops, as oil bodies can be exploited to simplify protein isolation. As per published records, SemBioSys Genetics has developed oleosin-fusion platform, in which the target recombinant protein is produced in oilseed rape as a fusion with oleosin. The Finnish biotech company, Unicrop is also developing an oil seed platform. However, they are attempting to isolate recombinant proteins from rapidly developing sprouts cultivated in bioreactors.

Tobacco helps

Surprisingly, tobacco forms a well-established expression host for which robust transformation procedures are available. Tobacco has a high biomass yield and rapid scalability which makes it a popular choice for commercial molecular farming. "Tobacco is also preferred since it is not a food or feed crop and hence carries reduced fear for transgenic material or recombinant proteins contaminating feed and human food chain," explains Reddy. However, the high content of nicotine and other toxic alkaloids, which are harmful, need to be completely removed during downstream processing steps. Tobacco, as a platform, has also been adopted by several biotech companies, across the world. According to the latest published records, Planet Bio-technology and Meristem Therapeutics are companies who have PMPs with tobacco as a platform with products in Phase II clinical trials.

In the future

Stunning advances in areas of immunology, genomics and molecular screening have dramatically increased the hope for PMPs in the pipeline. But the truth is that the pipeline is not flowing as smoothly as it should because of the daunting costs of building adequate production facilities. "Any new technology is expensive in the beginning but with increase in volumes, competition and time, the price will come down," opines Reddy. Agrees the Director from DBT, "Once the procedures are standardised and streamlined, PMPs can be very cost-effective," she says. She also feels that there is a good potential in the technology but in India, it is not being taken up in an aggressive manner as it has been done in US and France. However, the industry is still optimistic about it.

Researchers believe that one of the keys to success will be the level of expression of the recombinant protein in plants. The expression level will affect the cost of growing, processing, extraction, purification and waste disposal.

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

Here's an great article on how genetically modified trees may help in the future as a energy source.

Alisa

Fast-growing GM trees could take root as future energy source
YubaNet
August 25, 2006

tree that can reach 90 feet in six years and be grown as a row crop on fallow farmland could represent a major replacement for fossil fuels.

Purdue University researchers are using genetic tools in an effort to design trees that readily and inexpensively can yield the substances needed to produce alternative transportation fuel. The scientists are focused on a compound in cell walls called lignin that contributes to plants' structural strength, but which hinders extraction of cellulose. Cellulose is the sugar-containing component needed to make the alternative fuel ethanol.

The Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research is funding a $1.4 million, three-year study by Purdue faculty members Clint Chapple, Richard Meilan and Michael Ladisch to determine ways to alter lignin and test whether the genetic changes affect the quality of plants used to produce biofuels. A hybrid poplar tree is the basis for the research that is part of the DOE's goal to replace 30 percent of the fossil fuel used annually in the United States for transportation with biofuels by 2030.

In 2005 ethanol accounted for only 4 billion gallons of the 140 billion gallons of U.S. transportation fuel used - less than 3 percent. About 13 percent of the nation's corn crop was used for that production. Purdue scientists and experts at the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Energy say corn can only be part of the solution to the problem of replacing fossil fuel.

"If Indiana wants to support only corn-based ethanol production, we would have to import corn," said Chapple, a biochemist. "What we need is a whole set of plants that are well-adapted to particular growing regions and have high levels of productivity for use in biofuel production."

Chapple and Meilan want to genetically modify the hybrid poplar so that lignin will not impede the release of cellulose for degradation into fermentable sugars, which then can be converted to ethanol. The changed lignin also may be useable either in fuel or other products, they said. Currently about 25 percent of the material in plants is the complex molecule lignin, which in its present form could be burned to supply energy for ethanol production, but cannot be transformed into the alternative fuel.

Altering lignin's composition or minimizing the amount present in a cell wall could improve access of enzymes. With easier access, enzymes would be able to more efficiently convert cellulose to sugars. Current treatments used for extracting lignin from woody products for pulp and paper production are harsh and pollute the environment, said Meilan, a Purdue Department of Forestry and Natural Resources molecular tree physiologist.

To advance production of non-fossil fuels, Chapple and Meilan are using genetic tools to modify the poplar and then study how the alterations changed the plants' cell walls. Meilan also is attempting to find ways to produce trees that are reproductively sterile so they are unable to transfer introduced traits to wild trees.

When Chapple and Meilan are satisfied with the results, they will give wood samples to Ladisch, a distinguished professor of agricultural and biological engineering, so he can determine if the changes have created trees suitable for high-yield ethanol production.

Using hybrid poplar and its relatives as the basis for biofuels has a number of advantages for the environment, farmers and the economy, they said.

"Poplar is a low-maintenance crop; plant it and wait seven years to harvest it," Meilan said. "You're not applying pesticides every year; you're not trampling all over the site every year and compacting the soil. You're allowing nutrients to recycle every year when the leaves fall and degrade. In addition, you are more likely to have greater wildlife diversity in poplar plantings than in agricultural fields."

Experts are proposing planting the trees in rows just like any field crop. The basis of these tree plantations will be tens of millions of acres that the DOE and USDA have inventoried as being unused or fallow - previously used farmland that is standing empty because farmers are paid not to grow anything.

"We need a bioenergy crop that can grow many places year-round," Meilan said. "The genus Populus includes about 30 species that grow across a wide climatic range from the subtropics in Florida to sub-alpine areas in Alaska, northern Canada and Europe."

Corn can be grown only in a few areas of the world and only during a relatively short growing season. Besides needing potential fuel-source crops that can be grown year-round and in many geographical locations, experts also want to increase the per acre tonnage yield of crops and the gallons of ethanol per ton.

Researchers believe that using the hybrid poplar in its present form could produce about 70 gallons of fuel per ton of wood. Approximately 10 tons of poplar could be grown per acre annually, representing 700 gallons of ethanol. Corn currently produces about 4.5 tons per acre per year with a yield of about 400 gallons of ethanol. Changing the lignin composition could increase the annual yield to 1,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, according to experts. Planted on 110 million acres of unused farmland, this could replace 80 percent of the transportation fossil fuel consumed in the United States each year.

"We don't want to compromise the structural integrity of the plant," Meilan said. "We just want to alter the lignin composition to make it easier to liberate the cellulose for conversion to simple sugars that the yeast can gobble up and turn into ethanol."

Chapple and Meilan are affiliated with the Energy Center and the Bindley Bioscience Center at Purdue's Discovery Park. Meilan also is affiliated with the Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center. Ladisch is director of Laboratory of Renewable Resources Engineering (LORRE).

Purdue's Discovery Park is designed to bring together researchers from a wide range of specialties and provide an environment for interdisciplinary research that explores new ideas, technologies and moves research to the marketplace. It is now a $300 million enterprise with 10 established research centers.

Purdue and U.S. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) are co-sponsoring the Summit on Energy Security on Aug. 29 on the West Lafayette campus. Among the participants scheduled are Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Ford Motor Company's vice president for the environment and safety, Susan Cischke, and Peggy Hudson, U.S. vice president for federal and international affairs for fuel giant BP America Inc.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article about a recent test developed in response to recent questions over an unauthorized genetically modified rice strain that was found in commercial rice.

Alisa

USDA says validated Bayer test for GMO rice
By Christopher Doering
Reuters
August 25, 2006

U.S. government scientists certified a test by Bayer CropScience on Thursday that detects when an unapproved genetically modified rice has been mixed into commercial rice, the Agriculture Department said.

A number of customers for U.S.-grown rice have said they will demand tests for the gene. While a small rice grower, the United States is one of the world's largest exporters, sending half of its crop to foreign buyers.

Federal and industry officials said they do not know how much of the U.S. rice stockpile contained the gene or if this year's crop, nearing maturity, was affected.

"I can guarantee that there will be very extensive testing especially now that we have validated or certified the testing for 601," said Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, referring to the experimental LL Rice 601 strain.

USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration began working with Bayer CropScience, a unit of Bayer AG (BAYG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), about two weeks ago after U.S. agriculture and food safety authorities learned on July 31 that Bayer's unapproved rice had been found in commercial bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

The genetically engineered long grain rice has a protein known as Liberty Link, which allows the crop to withstand applications of an herbicide used to kill weeds.

GIPSA used reference material and methodology provided by Bayer CropScience to verify the company's ability to distinguish its strain.

"We verified a 601 method back to Bayer," said Steven Tanner, director of GIPSA's Kansas City laboratory where the test verification work was conducted.

Tanner said the lab was doing "some additional confirmations on components" but Bayer was now able to take its test to commercial laboratories.

Bayer officials have said they are working to get six labs ready to begin commercial testing. The company predicted on Thursday that tests could begin in a matter of days.

Quentin Schultz, president of BioDiagnostics Inc. whose company would help conduct the tests, said he has already received samples from seed companies and grain processors. The labs must first show they can comply with testing protocols from Bayer.

"As soon as we get a go from (Bayer) we're going to start because we've got samples in here already," Schultz said.

He estimated his company could process as many as 100 tests each day, with each test taking between 48 and 72 hours.

The European Commission on Wednesday said the EU would require imports of U.S. long grain rice to be certified as free from the unauthorized strain. The commission said validated tests must be done by an accredited laboratory and be accompanied by a certificate. Japan, the largest importer of U.S. rice, has suspended imports of U.S. long-grain rice.

USDA and the Food and Drug Administration have said there is no public health or environmental risk with the genetically engineered rice.

USA Rice Federation, which markets and promotes U.S. rice, has opposed the commercialization of genetically modified rice until it has gained wider consumer acceptance. David Coia, a spokesman for the group, said the test is a necessary step to reassure buyers of U.S. rice.

"If other markets are requiring the certification then certainly the test will be available," said Coia. "In the end, yes, it should help."

The United States is expected to produce a rice crop valued at $1.88 billion in 2006. U.S. rice growers are responsible for about 12 percent of world rice trade. Three-fourths of the crop is long grain rice, grown almost entirely in the lower Mississippi Valley. California, the No. 2 rice state, grows short grain rice.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article on how genetically modified crops are needed in the production of insulin to meet global demands.

Alisa

Insulin from plants will meet demand
Sydney Morning Herald
August 24, 2006

Insulin must be grown in genetically engineered plants to meet fast-growing demand created by the global diabetes epidemic, an Australian conference has been told.

More than seven per cent of Australians have type two diabetes, with up to 40 per cent relying on regular insulin injections to control blood sugar levels.

Until the mid-1980s, insulin was animal derived, but with the advent of biotechnology most of the world's supply is now produced through fermentation of bacteria in laboratories.

But Canadian biopharmaceuticals expert Professor Maurice Moloney has told the International Congress of Plant Molecular Biology in Adelaide that the costs of production were enormous and fast-growing.

The number of people with type two diabetes, also know as the lifestyle disease, was expected to increase to 300 million within 20 years.

Those suffering the lesser virulent type one diabetes are entirely dependent on insulin injections.

Prof Moloney, founder of SemBioSys Genetics, said genetically engineered plants offered a cheap, abundant and viable source of insulin.

"The capital required to produce the required amount of insulin from other sources runs into billions of dollars," he said.

"To produce it from plants would be about one tenth of that cost.

"And what's more, it would not require millions of hectares (because) world supply could be produced from two average sized farms."

Prof Moloney said purified insulin could be authentically produced from proteins in genetically engineered plant seeds to be identical to insulin produced in the pancreas of healthy people.

Research facilities were working to create safe technology to produce insulin in oil seed plants, such as safflower.

He said there was intense rivalry among companies around the world to prove the area could provide an unprecedented scale of production and storage flexibility.

The process required extensive agricultural controls and there were challenges in navigating the pharmaceutical approval system through clinical trials for safety and effectiveness, Prof Moloney said.

"However, the capability exists and one example of clinical success will transform the insulin production industry, and indeed the production of other pharmaceuticals," the scientist said.

Posted by AC Baumer at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting piece from a fellow blogger about how agricultural biotechnology has been helping smallholder farmers in South Africa. Hope you find it very informative.

Best,
Alisa

Agricultural Biotechnology is Beneficial to Smallholder Farmers
by James Wachai
AgBioView & GMO Africa
August 23, 2006

Anti-biotech activists are fond of casting genetically modified (GM) crops as a domain for stinking-rich farmers. They have vainly tried to ingrain in the minds of many that smallholder farmers have nothing to gain from GM crops cultivation.

But a research published last month by Marnus Gouse and Johann Kirsten, both of the University of Pretoria, South Africa, Carl Pray (Rutgers University, U.S.A.), and David Schimmelpfennig (United States Department of Agriculture Research Service), showed that smallholder farmers in South Africa have benefited from genetically modified maize cultivation, just like their large-scale counterparts.

Last week, Mexican researchers published yet another study that will further reinforce the argument that agricultural biotechnology is geared towards poor-resource farmers.

Octavio Guerrero-Andrade of the Center for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV) in Guanajuato and colleagues, in their article in the online edition of Transgenic Research, explain that a gene from the Newcastle disease virus will be inserted into maize DNA. Chicken that eat the genetically modified maize will produce antibodies against the Newcastle disease virus.

There is no doubt that this new maize variety will be a big boon to poultry farmers, especially in developing countries. They will no longer worry about expensive vaccines.

Poultry farming is a common practice in many developing countries. In many rural areas, whole families derive their livelihood from poultry farming. In countries such as Nigeria and South Africa, poultry farming plays an integral role in national development.

This new genetically modified maize, inarguable, will be the most effective and convenient tool to control the Newcastle disease. The existing vaccines for New Castle disease are out of reach of poor farmers. These farmers live on less than a dollar a day. Such income will be hardly enough to buy vaccines. Moreover, such vaccines require refrigeration, yet electricity is non-existent in most rural areas.

Farmers in developing countries must go for the new genetically modified maize. It will definitely boost their income.

To learn more about GMO Africa, go to http://gmoafrica.org/index.html

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a great artice on how genetically modified tomatoes can boost heart health. Hope you find it informative.

Alisa

Flavonoid-rich GM tomatoes could boost heart health
By Stephen Daniells
Food Navigator
August 23, 2006

Tomatoes genetically modified to have high flavonoid content could reduce the levels of a protein in a mouse that is associated with inflammation, diabetes and heart disease in humans, says a study by BASF, TNO and two universities in Holland and Germany.

“This is the first time that specific fruit has been demonstrated to reduce human C-reactive protein (CRP) and that transgenic over-expression of specific flavonoids results in a further reduction of this important cardiovascular risk marker,” wrote lead author Dietrich Rein from BASF Plant Science Holding GmbH.

A number of genetically modified plants and crops are coming to light with enhanced nutritional content considered to offer human health benefits, including zeaxanthin to potato tubers, and the omega-3 fatty acid, eicosapentaeoic acid (EPA), to soybeans, brassica, and stearidonic acid (SDA) in canola crops.

However, no GM crops with potentially enhanced health benefits have been approved for human consumption, and consumer acceptance, particularly in Europe, and most notably in the UK, continues to be one of the biggest challenges for these crops.

And by feeding the peel of transgenic tomatoes to mice genetically engineered to express human CRP, the researchers report that this enables them to putatively study the potential human health effects of these flavonoid-enriched tomatoes (flTom).

CRP is produced in the liver and is a known marker for inflammation. Increased levels of CRP are a good predictor for the onset of both type-2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Rein and his associates, writing in the September issue of the Journal of Nutrition, report that feeding the CRP mice with a diet supplemented with four grams per kilogram of flTom peel, wild-type tomato (wtTom) or a control. The amount of tomato fed to the mice is equivalent to a human daily intake of 2.3 grams of peel or about 230 grams of fresh tomato.

This, said the researchers, “constitutes a portion that is achievable in the human diet.”

After seven weeks of feeding the respective diets, Rein and his co-workers measured levels of general health and cardiovascular risk, such as plasma CRP, and cholesterol levels.

It was found that consumption of either tomato peels was associated with a significant decrease in levels of human CRP, with flTom “significantly exceeding” the effect of wtTom (56 versus 43 per cent reductions, respectively).

Levels of HDL-cholesterol, so-called ‘good' cholesterol, were also up in both tomato groups.

The levels of CRP in the flTom-fed mice were found to have increased back to baseline levels after a two week washout period.

“To our knowledge, results from this study demonstrate for the first time that a genetically engineered fruit with enhanced flavonoids levels can have anti-inflammatory effects that exceed the effects of its wild-type counterpart,” wrote the researchers.

To increase the flavonoid content in the tomato the Dutch and German researchers inserted Petunia chalcone isomerase (CHI) and Gerbera hybrida flavone synthase (FNS) genes into tomato plants to obtain the final transgenic plant, Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Moneymaker.

Since the skin of the tomatoes contain more than 95 per cent of the flavonoids, the researchers used the peel of this flavonoid-enriched tomato (flTom) to feed to mice that express human CRP.

The flTom contained significantly higher concentrations of the flavonoles, quercitin and kampferol, and their respective glucosides and rutinosides, and the flavone, luteolin (aglycon and glucoside derivatives) than the normal wild-type tomato (wtTom).

And it is the effect of these flavonoids, propose the researchers, on the signalling of the so-called nuclear factor-kappa B(NF-kB), a pro-inflammatory protein that is also said to activate a variety of human cancers, that could be behind the benefits.

“Flavanols and flavones exert anti-inflammatory activities on NF-kB-regulated genes,” they said. Despite such positive results in the mouse model with human CRP, Rein wrote that it remained unclear whether similar results would be obtained in humans as a consequence of eating flavonoid-enriched tomatoes.

However, “genetic enhancement of valuable dietary components in plant foods, such as specific flavonoids in tomatoes, may allow us to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease,” he concluded.

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

Here's an interesting commentary I came across regarding GM foods in Southern Africa.

Alisa

Science for food
By Mzati Nkolokosa
The Nation (Malawi) via AgBios
August 23, 2006

The famine of 2001 was a double-edged sword in Southern Africa and Malawi was a typical example.

On one side, people were dying of hunger-related illnesses. On the other, government was being accused of accepting genetically modified (GM) relief maize.

Zambia, which was starving as well, was praised for rejecting GM maize because as Mwananyada Lewanika, a biochemist at the Institute for Science and Technology said “GM maize is risky to people.”

This was bought by a network of international organisations. Here, the Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) brought 10 African countries to a conference where GM foods were condemned, saying people were supposed to be warned of the dangers of consuming such foods and that Malawi was supposed to reject the maize.

Government was compelled to mill the maize to prevent people from planting the seed because, as people speculated, GM maize had the ability to kill other crops.

But GM crops are not that bad as I discovered on a fact finding mission in South Africa where I went about the country, visiting GM maize and cotton farmers. In fact, the right name is genetically improved (GI) or biotechnology—applied biology that uses any living system to produce something useful using the latest tools and techniques.

“Science is for the benefit of people,” said Professor Diran Makinde of AfricaBio, an independent, non-profit biotechnology stakeholders association whose role is to provide accurate information and create awareness on biotechnology in South Africa and the region. “A scientist cannot give people something that will destroy them. That is not science.”

Makinde was speaking when he introduced biotechnology to parliamentarians, journalists and scientists from Malawi and Kenya.

The audience was all silent, marvelling at the presentation. Biotechnology, said Makinde, is the science of improving crops and animals by taking genes from any source into another organism.

This technology, although known to most Malawians a couple of years ago, has been around for decades and been useful in sewerage and compositing, making of bread, wine, beer, medicinal plants and vaccine.

A typical example is medicinal trees.

If a medicinal tree in North Pole cannot grow in Malawi, scientists can take the genes to a specie in Malawi, put that gene in a miombo, to produce the same effect as the medicinal tree of the North Pole. That is how biotechnology works.

That is what scientists have done with maize and cotton, for example. It is working in South Africa, the continent’s only country growing GM crops at commercial level.

In Soweto I met a group of women growing BT maize. Their field trials were educative. One of them, Ella Baloyi, was speaking reasonable Chichewa.

“Amuna anga anali a ku Malawi [My husband was from Malawi],” she said. “Look up for him [name withheld] in Lilongwe. He left three years ago.”

She talked of how BT maize is helping them, commercially. She belongs to a club that planted BT maize on one plot and non-BT maize on another. Both were mature and dry.

But there was difference. BT maize cobs were big and healthy, not attacked by insects while non-BT maize cobs were small and partly suffering from weevils and such other insects.

This means more maize has been harvested from a BT crop than non-BT crop from two identical plots. And the differences are remarkable, huge that one wouldn’t go for non-BT maize once they try BT crop.

But it is at Makhathini in Kwazulu Natal where the power of BT crops manifests itself. The place is hot, like Malawi’s lakeshore, typical of cotton growing areas. Farmers here have been growing cotton for years.

But once they tried BT cotton, they vowed never to look back to non-BT cotton.

“I don’t think I will ever grow non BT cotton,” said Rejoice Mkhabela, a farmer at Makhathini where a club of farmers is growing cotton. “With non-BT cotton we used to spray every week for three months, now we spray four times.”

This is possible because BT cotton is a combination of genes that, among other things, make grow leaves that scare insects.

So is maize. Biotechnology is able to produce insect and drought resistant yet nutritious maize.

“Food biotechnology is a way to improve food, crops and animals by selectively giving plants and animals new qualities, such as more vitamins and minerals and better nutritional value.

Traditional breeding methods combine thousands of traits from two plants while with biotechnology, only the desired characteristic is added to a plant.

This means food may be enhanced to contain additional nutrients or other traits to make them taste fresh. Farmers also benefit by having new ways to fight pests and disease and grow food in a more environmentally friendly way.

BT farming is working in South Africa. President Thabo Mbeki has got biotechnology right.

He says his government will increase funding for agricultural research to promote the continuous improvement in competitiveness and leadership in ...biotechnology that is vital to South Africa’s agriculture.

This fired up the fact finding mission. Journalists and MPs realised “we were cheated that GM foods are bad when in true sense they are meant to end hunger in our countries”.

Malawi, too, was ready. Former Deputy Minister of Agriculture Henry Mumba said so. The country has a Biosafety Act to ensure safety imported of BT foods.

Our immediate enemy is not the Israel-Hizbollah war in Lebanon but hunger, disease and envy as the national anthem rightly suggests.

One African, Cryrus Ndiritu, has understood Mbeki correctly.

“It is not multinationals that have a stranglehold on Africa. It is hunger, poverty and deprivation. And if Africa is going to get out of that, it has got to embrace GM technology,” says Ndiritu.

Posted by AC Baumer at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article on discussions at the recent Agriculture Biotechnology Conference in Melbourne, Australia.

Regards,
Alisa

Genetically altered cattle - what's at stake?
By Ros White
Yorke Peninsula Country Times
August 22, 2006

Some of the world's foremost experts on agricultural biotechnology attended the Agricultural Biotechnology Conference in Melbourne, August 7-9.

Topics included the use of genes to improve crops, livestock cloning and reproduction, and the role of agricultural biotechnology in helping the environment.

A key speaker from the US was Dr Robert Wall, whose area of expertise is the introduction of new genes into animals as a means of improving livestock production efficiency.

CSIRO takes a stake

At the conference, CSIRO, which has been at the forefront of cattle-gene research for more than 10 years, announced it had taken an equity stake in Genetic Solutions, a global leader in the commercialisation for gene technology for the beef industry. The company has pioneered live DNA tests for beef eating qualities and a DNA test which provides paddock to plate traceability for the beef industry.

CSIRO Commercialisation GM Jan Bingley said, within the next five years, groups of 50 or more DNA markers will be available for the cattle industry.

Completed genome

The ability to improve health and disease management of cattle received a major boost with the release last week of the most complete sequence of the cow genome ever assembled.

Developed by an international consortium including the CSIRO, the new bovine sequence contains 2.9 billion DNA base pairs and incorporates one-third more data than earlier versions.

CSIRO's Dr Brian Dalrymple said, "We can use this data to identify those genes that are involved in important functions like lactation, reproduction, growth rate and disease resistance.

"This is just the beginning of a revolution in the way we produce our animals and food."

Beefing it up

Commercial tests are now available to identify tenderness and marbling in beef, using laboratory analysis of an animal's DNA, which can be extracted from tail hair roots.

The tests were developed by a consortium comprising the Cattle and Beef Quality Cooperative Research Centre, CSIRO Livestock Industries and Meat and Livestock Australia.

The project identified a particular gene form associated with either beef tenderness or toughness.

This means breeders can improve tenderness by removing animals with two copies of the tough gene and also by selecting to increase the frequency of the tender gene.

According to the CSIRO, gene mapping is low-risk research and is conducted in minimum-security laboratories.

Australia's first cloned and genetically modified calves were born in 2002. They contained an extra gene for milk protein production, which could increase it by 10 per cent.

Unfortunately, due to difficulties in the early stages of development, only one of the four calves survived.

Genetic modification is different from selective breeding. So is it tampering with nature?

What is genetically modified food?

It is food produced from any crop or animal that has been genetically altered during its production, with modifications usually involving changing one of the 30,000 to 50,000 genes making up an organism.

The debate on GM food and its implications for human health continues to rage.

Those in favour would say:

All GM food reaching us has been assessed to meet safety regulations.

Because of gene technology we can have tastier, healthier, nutritionally improved food at a cheaper price because genetic modification helps farmers reduce wastage.

Many GM crops are not substantially changed so there is no need to separate them from unmodified crops. Those against would say:

We don't have conclusive proof GM food is safe.

The technique is imprecise and the science too new to guarantee we won't have problems in the future.

There are already traditional plant and animal breeding techniques that can improve our food.

We can't always choose whether we eat GM food as the current labelling doesn't tell us.

The impact on the environment

Supporters say all GM crops must be carefully assessed for their impact on the environment before they are planted, and that better use can be made of agricultural land as GM crops can grow in conditions unfavourable to traditional crops.

However, opposers say genetic pollution could happen, with unwanted consequences. If this happens, they say, agriculture and the environment will be irreversibly altered.

At the conference, Greenpeace GE campaigner Louise Sales, said despite approval by regulators in many countries, serious concerns remained, including biodiversity impacts, genetic pollution, increased pesticide use and the emergence of pesticide-resistant weeds and insect pests.

"There has been no assessment in Australia of the impacts on native wildlife, beneficial insects, native plants or the ecology of Australia's agricultural areas," she said.

In Australia, cotton and carnations are the only two genetically modified commodities available commercially. The Federal Government has approved canola for commercial release but because of State Government moratoriums it is only being sown in small field trials.

It is estimated at least 70 per cent of processed foods on shelves in the US contain ingredients and oils from biotech crops. The first biotech crop, a tomato, was sold in 1994; the first commodity crop, an insect resistant corn, was sold in 1996. The majority of large commercial farms plant genetically modified crops and there is no effort to distinguish those from non-biotech crops and foods.

In the EU, the issue of whether it is possible to keep GM and conventional crops completely separate is causing much discontent, with 11 GM seeds approved or small commercial plots, while a number of other EU countries have banned GM organisms.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article on plans for genetically modified potato trials in Great Britian.

Alisa

GM firm plans potato trials in Britain
By Ian Sample
Guardian Unlimited
August 23, 2006

Fields of genetically modified potatoes could be planted in Britain as early as next spring under controversial plans being considered by officials.

The plant science company BASF has applied to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to conduct two field trials of GM potatoes, modified with genes to resist late blight, the fungus that devastated Ireland's potato crop in the famine of the 1840s.

If permission is granted by the environment secretary, David Miliband, the trials will become the first in Britain since the government's field scale trials, which were conducted to assess the environmental implications of GM crop farming and completed in 2003. The prospect of GM crop trials alarmed anti-GM campaigners who fear they could lead to contamination of non-GM food supplies.

The application represents a testing of the water by multinational biotechnology companies since GM crop research was shifted out of Britain en masse in response to the negative public opinion and the widespread trashing of GM crop trials by anti-GM activists.

If the plans are approved, BASF will plant two hectares of GM potatoes in April next year, one in Derbyshire and another at the National Institute for Agricultural Botany in Cambridge. After three to four years of trials the company will seek permission to market, grow and sell the potatoes in Britain.

All of the potatoes grown in the trials must be dug up and transported to laboratories in secure vehicles for testing before being destroyed. Researchers must then observe the field the following season and uproot any remaining potatoes that appear.

The trials would follow ongoing tests of the GM potatoes in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. "This would be our first GM trial in the UK and we need to conduct these to see how the crop grows in different conditions," said Barry Stickings of BASF. "I hope that society, including the NGOs, realise that all we are doing is increasing choice."

Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) causes devastating losses to the farming industry, amounting to about £50m each year, despite regular spraying of fungicides. To genetically modify potatoes to resist the blight, researchers at BASF extracted genes from wild relatives of the potato found in Mexico and inserted them into crop potatoes. The genes respond to the fungus by killing off cells around the site of infection, a sacrificial defence that saves the plant from destruction.

If the trials are approved, scientists will infect some GM potatoes with the fungus and wait for natural infection to strike others. They will then assess the effectiveness of the protection.

Andy Beadle, an expert in fungal resistance at BASF, said the risks of contamination from GM crops are minimal because potatoes reproduce through the production of tubers, unlike other crops such as oil seed rape which produces pollen that can be carried for miles on the wind.

Julian Little, spokesman for the GM industry group, the Agricultural Biotechnology Commission, said: "This is a big deal. There have been no trials in this country since the government's field scale trials and the industry is going to be very interested to see how these go."

A Defra spokesman said: "This application will be assessed thoroughly for safety to human health and the environment and considered by the independent experts on the advisory commitee for releases to the environment (Acre)."

Liz Wright, a GM campaigner at Friends of the Earth said: "We have a problem with field trials and with potatoes. The main problem is ensuring you get every scrap of the crop out of the ground afterwards. If you don't manage that, you can get them growing again the next year."

Gains and risks

How are GM crops produced?

Beneficial genes are snipped out of organisms, often other plants, and inserted into the genome of the crop. One way to do this is to use a harmless virus that has been modified to carry the beneficial genes.

Are GM crops grown in Britain?

Not yet, but last year six European countries farmed GM crops.

What are the risks?

Some GM crops, such as oilseed rape, produce pollen that can potentially fertilise non-GM varieties. To minimise the risks, farmers would have to plant these away from other crops. GM potatoes produce a minimal amount of pollen.

How big is the potato market?

Potatoes are the fourth-largest staple food crop in the world. Farmers spend about £20m on fungicides to protect against late blight.

What is the benefit of GM potatoes?

Potatoes are sprayed about 15 times a season to protect them against late blight. GM potatoes would need spraying only a couple of times.

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

Dr. Henry I. Miller, former head of the FDA Biotechnology Office, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author of the book The Frankenfood Myth, wrote a very interesting commentary in the Los Angeles Times recently entitled “The Bounty of Biotech”. In it, he discussed the actions in recent years to forbid the planting genetically modified plants and foods in various counties in California as well as a potential bill that could end these unwarranted and senseless bans.

In his commentary, Dr. Miller talks about politicians and voters in California who, over the past few years, have introduced and passed local ordinances in four California counties to ban the cultivation of plants and crops that have been improved through genetic modification and other state-of-the-art genetic techniques. He called these actions in the California counties of Trinity, Mendocino, Marin, and Santa Cruz democracy at its worst because the measures are unscientific and logically inconsistent, in that their restrictions are inversely related to risk.

Dr. Miller explains that the measures permit the use of microorganisms and plants that are crafted with less precise and predictable techniques but ban those made with more precise and predictable ones. Further, vast numbers of gene-spliced and other bacteria are released routinely from ordinary, low-containment microbiology laboratories without any harmful effects. He points out a study by the Environmental Protection Agency that found that for each technician in such labs, 50 million to 1 billion bacteria on average escape daily-on lab coats, in hair, or just by blowing out the door.

But, there is a far more fundamental issue at stake, Dr. Miller explains. The issue at stake is the freedom of individuals and companies to pursue lawful activities unencumbered. He said that all citizens should be concerned about the implications of subjecting safe and legitimate commercial products-in this case, plants modified though biotechnology, which has been proven to be a safe and superior technology-to surveillance, confiscation, and destruction by local officials who believe they are acting in the “best interest” of their constituents by banning such products.

California legislators are currently debating Senate Bill 1056, a bill introduced a year ago that would prevent local governments from banning genetically modified seeds. Dr. Miller points out that the bill would ensure consistency of regulation throughout the state and prevent farmers from having to navigate a county-by-county patchwork of restrictions and requirements. The bill has the support of virtually all major agricultural organizations, including the California Farm Bureau, Western United Dairymen, Western Growers Association, The Wine Institute, and more.

Dr. Miller explains that banning the cultivation of genetically modified ensures the increased use of chemical pesticides, the persistence of these chemicals in ground and surface water, and resulting in increased occupational exposures. Most important, Dr. Miller points out, is that the county bans are blocking sophisticated genetic approaches to the eradication of blights that threaten a variety of crops and ornamental plants in California. He writes that the potential that biotechnology has is not just theoretical. Through genetic modification, scientists have developed crops that are virus resistant, thus saving many thriving food industries from total devastation. The technology also makes it possible to remove dangerous allergens from wheat, peanuts, and commonly allergenic foods. In addition, genetic modification allows crop varieties to thrive in drought or near-drought conditions.

Further, Dr. Miller says California farmers plant almost a million acres of genetically modified crops annually and Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods that contain biotech ingredients, so the fears and lies that environmental groups and anti-biotech advocates have promoted for years are unwarranted.

It surprises me, even to this day, that people, especially politicians, believe the fear tactics promoted by those against biotechnology and are imposing bans on the technology because they feel genetically modified crops are unproven, unwanted, untested, and unregulated. Common sense proves these fears are not true. There has not been a single documented case of harm to a person or disruption of an ecosystem because of biotechnology. Genetically modified foods are safe and, as Dr. Miller so clearly points out in his commentary, have numerous benefits for both the farmer and the consumer. Letting misguided activism trample science is not good for public policy. Politicians and legislators in California should know and consider all of the facts about biotechnology and genetically modified foods and need to act favorably on Senate Bill 1056. It could impact the future of the individuals they represent, the companies and businesses in their state, and even themselves.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's another article from the USDA regarding genetically engineered rice.

Alisa

USDA: Genetically engineered rice
August 21, 2006

Genetic engineering (GE) is a precise and predictable method used to introduce new traits into plants and animals by moving genes and other genetic elements from one or more organisms into another organism.

GE crops are being produced that have a wide variety of traits that benefit farmers and consumers. For example, GE crops can tolerate drought conditions and herbicides, resist insects and viruses, and provide enhanced quality and nutrition for consumers. GE crops are being developed by private companies, universities, and other researchers.

GE crops that are currently consumed for food, fiber or feed include corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, alfalfa and squash. Over 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves in the U.S. contain ingredients and oils from biotech crops, according to an industry estimate.

USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service estimates that in 2006, 61 percent of the corn, 83 percent of the cotton and 89 percent of the soybeans planted in the United States were biotech varieties.

Biotechnology regulatory authority

Under a coordinated regulatory framework, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share responsibility for regulating biotechnology products to ensure that approved biotechnology products developed in the U.S. pose no risk to human health or the environment.

APHIS through its Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) arm is responsible for overseeing the introduction of GE agricultural products in the United States. Since 1987, APHIS has safely deregulated or approved more than 70 GE products.

Deregulation of GE crops is necessary before they can be produced commercially. The process includes several steps including an initial risk assessment and thorough environmental review.

Investigation of regulated rice in commercial rice samples

USDA and FDA have been notified by Bayer CropScience that the company has detected trace amounts of regulated genetically engineered (GE) rice in samples taken from commercial long grain rice.

Both USDA and FDA have reviewed the available scientific data and concluded that there is no human health, food safety, or environmental concerns associated with this GE rice.

Bayer has developed many GE herbicide-tolerant products with the protein called Liberty Link, three of which are rice. The regulated line is LLRICE 601 and Bayer reports finding only trace amounts of it during testing. Bayer conducted field tests of LLRICE 601 between 1998 and 2001. Bayer has indicated it had no plans to market LLRICE 601 and therefore had not petitioned for deregulation.

Two deregulated rice lines, LLRICE 62 and LLRICE 06, have been through thorough safety evaluations and have been deemed safe for use in food and safe in the environment, although these lines have not been commercialized.

Based on the available data and information, the FDA has concluded that the presence of LLRICE 601 in the food and feed supply poses no safety concerns and APHIS, through a risk assessment based on the same data and information, concluded that LLRICE 601 is safe in the environment.

Based on reports that LLRICE 601 is in the marketplace and a petition from Bayer, APHIS will conduct a deregulation process, including an opportunity for public comment.

Because the line of GE rice in question was regulated, APHIS is conducting an investigation to determine the circumstances surrounding the release and whether any violations of USDA regulations occurred.

The protein found in LLRICE 601 is approved for use in other products. It has been repeatedly and thoroughly scientifically reviewed and used safely in food and feed, cultivation, import and breeding in the United States, as well as nearly a dozen other countries around the world.

USDA is in the process of validating a test to provide the marketplace with a tool to detect the presence of the Liberty Link protein in rice. Bayer has made arrangements with several private laboratories to run the tests and will post that information on their website.

U.S. rice statistics

More than 100 varieties of rice are commercially produced primarily in six states (Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and California) in the U.S.

According to estimates for the 2006 crop year, rice production in the U.S. is valued at $1.88 billion, approximately half of which is expected to be exported.

The U.S. provides about 12 % of world rice trade.

In 2005, 80% of rice exports were long grain varieties.

The majority of domestic utilization of U.S. rice is direct food use (58%), while 16 percent is used in processed foods and beer respectively. The remaining 10 percent is found in pet food.

Glossary of terminology

Agricultural Biotechnology: A range of tools, including traditional breeding techniques, that alter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to make or modify products; improve plants or animals; or develop microorganisms for specific agricultural uses. Modern biotechnology today includes the tools of genetic engineering.

Deregulated: If a GE crop has gone through the regulatory process for USDA to determine that it can be safely commercialized, it is commonly referred to as being a deregulated crop. This is necessary before it is sold and produced commercially. It allows the product to be moved and planted freely without the need for notification or permits. A developer may file a petition for deregulation only after a GE crop has been tested extensively and the developer can show that the product does not pose a plant pest risk.

Gene: The fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity. A gene is typically a specific segment of a chromosome and encodes a specific functional product (such as a protein or RNA molecule).

Genetic engineering: Manipulation of an organism's genes by introducing, eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those techniques referred to as recombinant DNA techniques.

Herbicide-tolerant crops: Crops that have been developed to survive application(s) of particular herbicides by the incorporation of certain gene(s) either through genetic engineering or traditional breeding methods. The genes allow the herbicides to be applied to the crop to provide effective weed control without damaging the crop itself.

Protein: A molecule composed of one or more chains of amino acids in a specific order. Proteins are required for the structure, function, and regulation of the body's cells, tissues, and organs, and each protein has a unique function.

Regulated: If a GE crop has not gone through the regulatory process for USDA to determine if it can be safely commercialized, it is commonly referred to as being in regulated status or a regulated crop.

Variety: A subdivision of a species for taxonomic classification also referred to as a 'cultivar.' A variety is a group of individual plants that is uniform, stable, and distinct genetically from other groups of individuals in the same species.

More information on biotechnology and the USDA regulation of biotechnology can be found at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/biotechnology/index.shtml

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a statement by the USDA regarding Genetically Modified Rice found recently in samples of commercial rice.

Alisa

Statement by US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns regarding GE rice
USDA
August 21, 2006

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have been notified by Bayer CropScience that the company has detected trace amounts of regulated genetically engineered (GE) rice in samples taken from commercial long grain rice.

Both have reviewed the available scientific data and concluded that there are no human health, food safety, or environmental concerns associated with this GE rice.

Bayer has developed many GE herbicide-tolerant products with the protein called Liberty Link, three of which are rice. The regulated line is LLRICE 601 and Bayer reports finding only trace amounts of it during testing. LLRICE 601 was field tested between 1998 and 2001. Two deregulated lines, LLRICE 62 and LLRICE 06, have been through thorough safety evaluations and have been deemed safe for use in food and safe in the environment, although these lines have not been commercialized.

Based on the available data and information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has concluded that the presence of LLRICE 601 in the food and feed supply poses no safety concerns. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also conducted a risk assessment, which indicates LLRICE 601 is safe in the environment.

Bayer indicated it had no plans to market LLRICE 601 and therefore had not requested deregulation. Based on reports that LLRICE 601 is in the marketplace and a petition from Bayer, APHIS will conduct a deregulation process, including an opportunity for public comment.

Because the line of GE rice in question was regulated, APHIS is conducting an investigation to determine the circumstances surrounding the release and whether any violations of USDA regulations occurred.

The protein found in LLRICE 601 is approved for use in other products. It has been repeatedly and thoroughly scientifically reviewed and used safely in food and feed, cultivation, import and breeding in the United States, as well as nearly a dozen other countries around the world.

Since 1987, APHIS has deregulated more than 70 GE crop lines and in the last decade farmers have increasingly planted biotech varieties engineered mainly for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and enhanced quality traits. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service estimates that in 2006, 61 percent of the corn, 83 percent of the cotton and 89 percent of the soybeans planted in the United States were biotech varieties.

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

Here's a great article on the latest data regarding genetically modified crops. Hope you find it very informative.

Alisa

Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S.
ISB News Report
August 18, 2006

U.S. farmers have adopted genetically engineered (GE) crops widely since their introduction in 1996, notwithstanding uncertainty about consumer acceptance and economic and environmental impacts.

Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE crops in the U.S., followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn. This product summarizes the extent of adoption of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops since their introduction in 1996. Three tables, devoted to corn, cotton, and soybeans covering the 2000-2006 period by State, can be found at the following websites:

Genetically engineered corn varieties by State and United States, 2000-2006:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable1.htm

Genetically engineered upland cotton varieties by State and United States, 2000-2006:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable2.htm

Genetically engineered soybean varieties by State and United States, 2000-2006:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable3.htm

Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.: Extent of Adoption

Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops, developed to survive application of specific herbicides that previously would have destroyed the crop along with the targeted weeds, provide farmers with a broader variety of options for effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, HT soybeans went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001 and 89 percent in 2006. Plantings of HT cotton expanded from 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001 and 65 percent in 2006. The adoption of HT corn has lagged soybeans and cotton, reaching 36 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2006.

Insect-resistant crops containing the gene from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) have been available for corn and cotton since 1996. These bacteria produce a protein that is toxic to specific insects, protecting the plant over its entire life. Plantings of Bt corn grew from 8 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 1997 to 26 percent in 1999, then fell to 19 percent in 2000 and 2001, before climbing to 29 percent in 2003 and 40 percent in 2006. The recent increases in acreage share may be largely due to the commercial introduction in 2003/04 of a new Bt corn variety that is resistant to the corn rootworm, a pest that may be more destructive to corn yield than the European corn borer, which was previously the only pest targeted by Bt corn. Plantings of Bt cotton expanded more rapidly, from 15 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 1997 to 37 percent in 2001 and 57 percent in 2006.

Use of Bt corn will likely continue to fluctuate over time, based on expected infestation levels of European corn borer (ECB), and the corn rootworm which are the main pests targeted by the Bt corn. Similarly, adoption of Bt cotton depends on the expected infestation of Bt target pests, such as the tobacco budworm, the bollworm, and the pink bollworm. Adoption appears to have reached the low-growth phase, as adoption has already occurred on acreage where Bt protection is needed most. Insects have not posed major problems for soybeans, so insect-resistant varieties have not been developed.

These figures include adoption of "stacked" varieties of cotton and corn, which have both HT and Bt traits. Stacked cotton reached 39 percent of cotton plantings in 2006. Plantings of stacked corn are lower, making up only 15 percent of corn acres in 2006.

Adoption of all GE cotton, taking into account the acreage with either or both HT and Bt traits, reached 83 percent in 2006, versus 89 percent for soybeans. In contrast, adoption of all biotech corn was 61 percent.

The data was obtained by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) in the June Agricultural Survey for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Randomly selected farmers across the United States were asked if they planted corn, soybeans, or upland cotton seed that, through biotechnology, is resistant to herbicides, insects, or both. Conventionally bred herbicide-tolerant varieties were excluded. Stacked gene varieties include those containing GE traits for both herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (Bt).

According to NASS, the States published in the data tables represent 81-86 percent of all corn planted acres (depending on the year), 89-90 percent of all soybean planted acres, and 81-92 percent of all upland cotton planted acres. The acreage estimates are subject to sampling variability because all operations planting GE varieties are not included in the sample.

The tables will be updated with 2007 GE adoption figures in July 2007 once the survey data become available at the end of June 2007.

Many people are interested in information about the global GE acreage. USDA does not collect these data. Estimates are produced by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) and can be found in the report, Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2005. (http://www.isaaa.org/kc/bin/briefs34/cbu/index.htm)

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article on a recent survey about genetically modified potatoes in Peru.

Regards,
Alisa

Andean farmers ready for GM potato, paper finds
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) website
August 18, 2006

Potato production in Peru is affected by a high number of pests and diseases, all of which result in low yields or extensive use of pesticides.

Is it time for genetically modified (GM) potatoes to enter the scene? Jasper Buijs and colleagues of the International Potato Center (CIP), Peru, report on the “Potential adoption and management of insect-resistant potato in Peru, and implications for genetically engineered potato” in a recent issue of Environmental Biosafety Research, where they survey farmers in Peru’s major potato producing areas and use their data to analyze important issues surrounding the possible adoption of the GM crop in the country.

According to the survey, farmers considered insect damage (mainly duet to Andean potato weevil and potato tuber moth) the biggest constraint to potato cultivation. In addition, the team reports:

1) 97% of smallholder farmers would be willing to pay more for an insect-resistant potato variety, although a majority would buy it only once every 2-4 years;

2) Farmers would be willing to pay a premium of 50% on seed cost for insect resistant potatoes, which would still increase their net income, assuming insect resistance is high and pesticide use is strongly reduced;

3) 55% of farmers indicated preference for insect-resistant potato over their current varieties;

4) 68% of farmers would not always be able to sow insect-resistant varieties next to one of their current susceptible varieties; and

5) 89% stated that they could refrain from mixing insect-resistant lines with conventional varieties.

The survey, the authors write, indicates that smallholder farmers in Peru are interested in new varieties, and have a positive perception of improved varieties. The authors propose that a variety-based segregation scheme be developed to separate GM from conventionally-bred potatoes. They also advise that a two-gene approach be used to engineer GM potatoes; and that male-sterile lines be used to control of gene flow without preventing farmers from multiplying their own planting materials clonally.

Posted by AC Baumer at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article on biotech developments in Malawi in Africa.

Regards,
Alisa

Malawi formulates national biotechnology policy
By Rebecca Chimjeka
African News Dimension
August 16, 2006

The government of Malawi is in the process of formulating a National Biotechnology Policy that aims to strengthen existing research institutions and improve the country's legal and regulatory framework.

This is to facilitate the safe application of biotechnology and the structured generation of innovation and intellectual property and rights.

"The National Biotechnology Policy would address socio-economic needs and utilisation of the country's natural resources and existing conservation rights," said Patrick Kachimera secretary for science and technology at a stake holders meeting on the National Biotechnology Policy held in the capital.

He also said the meeting would also help to address socio-economic needs and utilisation of the country's natural resources and existing conservation rights and help the country to combat disease and nutritional disorders brought about by genetically modified organism foods and increase agricultural productivity and trade.

He said that it was imperative for Malawi as a developing nation to put much emphasis on biotechnology research and development because it can enhance food security, nutritional status, health and well being, create jobs by stimulating economic growth and supporting environmental sustainability.

Kachimera said while there is little controversy about many aspects of biotechnology and its application, GMOs have the potential to increase productivity in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

"GMOs could lead to higher yields in marginal lands. There are already examples of genetic modification helping to reduce the transmission of human and animal diseases through new vaccines and diagonostic tests.

Rice and maize have been genetically modified to contain pro-vitamin A and Iron which could improve the nutritional status of many in the rurual areas," he said.

He said biotechnology, as with all technologies has risks that fall into two groups namely; the effects on human and animal health and the effects on crops and environment.

On human and animal health risk, he said the policy wants to ensure that caution is exercised to reduce the risk of transfering toxins or of transfering allergenic compounds from one species to another or causing resistance to drugs for treating certain diseases.

As a number of countries continue to produce food from GMO, Malawi has had experience of being supplied with GM maize to address the food shortage in 2001/2002, a situation which created problems since the country had no guidelines on how to handle GMO foods.

Solutions ranged from total denial to milling maize before disribution and prohibiting use of GM maize for seed. However, the latter two solutions were adopted.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article I came across recently about biotechnology and medicine.

Alisa

More than 400 Biotechnology Medicines in Testing
PharmaLive
8/14/06

A new report from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) found 418 medicines and vaccines – developed through biotechnology – now being tested to treat more than 100 diseases. All of the biotechnology medicines and vaccines are now in clinical trails or awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The biotechnology medicines include 210 medicines to treat cancer, 50 to treat infectious disease, 44 to treat autoimmune disorders, 22 to treat HIV Infection and related-conditions and 22 to treat cardiovascular diseases.

“The biotechnology revolution is giving patients and doctors new hope and new tools to fight disease,” said Billy Tauzin, PhRMA president and CEO. “With mapping of the human genome completed, scientists are now researching the role some discovered genes play in disease and new medicines to treat those diseases. The biotech medicines now in the pipeline are fundamentally changing the way we fight disease.”

The report released finds that the biotechnology medicines in development include:

- Monoclonal antibodies that target asthma, lupus and various types of cancer.

- Therapeutic vaccines that are designed to jump-start the immune system to fight diseases such as AIDS and cancer.

- Antisense products as potential treatments for cancer and heart disease.

- Gene therapy testing in cancer and heart disease.

The report can be found on the PharmaLive website.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, which are devoted to inventing medicines that allow patients to live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. PhRMA companies are leading the way in the search for new cures. PhRMA members alone invested an estimated $39.4 billion in 2005 in discovering and developing new medicines. Industry-wide research and investment reached a record $51.3 billion in 2005.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting article I came across recently regarding how red wine has been genetically modified to eliminate chemicals that are believed to trigger headaches. Hope you find it informative.

Alisa

Red wine with a DNA chaser?
By Jim Downing
The Sacramento Bee via CheckBiotech
August 15, 2006

The U.S. wine industry has entered the world of genetic engineering as some vintners experiment with a strain of yeast designed to eliminate chemicals in red wine that are believed to trigger headaches, including migraines, in some people.

Scientific research, much of it conducted at the University of California, Davis, has long played an important role in improving the quality of grapes and wines produced in California and around the world. But genetic modification -- in this case inserting two genes into the DNA of a yeast species -- marks a new threshold for the industry.

As a result, the new biotech yeast is getting a wary reception in a wine industry that sells itself on its artisan reputation and is anxious not to ruffle export markets touchy about genetically modified foods. Experts also say the new yeast alters the flavor of wine.

"As an industry, we're definitely interested in research when it comes to genetic engineering. But I don't think we're prepared to look at genetically modified products yet," said Paul Dolan, a winemaker and chairman of the Wine Institute, the California industry's leading advocacy group.

Still, the new yeast offers a promising way around the wine-headache problem. About 13 percent of Americans suffer migraines, according to the National Headache Foundation. Migraine patients are commonly told to avoid red wine, said Marco Vespignani, a naturopathic doctor at the Institute for Restorative Health in Davis.

At least a few wines made with the so-called ML01 yeast already are reaching consumers this year, according to Jason Rodriguez, wine products specialist for American Tartaric Products Inc., the California distributor of the yeast. He declined to identify any specific brands, though, and the wines aren't required to carry a special label.

In Northern California and Europe, where genetically modified foods have sparked controversy and strict regulation, a move to the new yeast could simply be trading one headache for another.

The growing of genetically modified crops has been banned by voters or county supervisors in Mendocino, Trinity, Marin and Santa Cruz counties. And in Europe, nearly all foods made with significant amounts of genetically modified ingredients must carry a label. That requirement has driven U.S. food companies to avoid the use of such ingredients in products exported to EU countries.

U.S. regulations don't require labels detailing whether a food contains genetically modified ingredients.

Wary of backlash in sensitive export markets, Australia's wine industry -- a key international competitor with California -- in November took an official position against the use of the new genetically modified yeast.

On Monday, the Wine Institute, which represents many, but not all, of California's wineries, did the same, issuing a statement declaring "that no genetically modified organisms be used in the production of California wine." The institute, however, does not have the authority to keep wineries from using the new yeast.

California wine exports totaled $625 million in 2005, according to the Wine Institute. Six of 10 California winemakers contacted for this story knew of the new yeast, but none said they were using it.

Outside the United States, only Moldova, in Eastern Europe, allows its winemakers to use the new yeast. Regulators in several other winemaking countries are reviewing it. The yeast's manufacturer, Lesaffre Yeast Corp. of Milwaukee, did not return calls seeking comment.

Here's how the ML01 yeast works:

Making red wine from crushed grapes usually involves two fermentation steps.

In the first, yeasts convert the sugar in crushed grapes into alcohol. In the second, bacteria transform harsh malic acid into relatively mild lactic acid.

Headache-causing chemicals can appear in the second step. If the wrong type of bacteria grow, they produce chemicals called amines. These cause reactions, such as headaches, in some people.

The ML01 yeast is able to perform both the first and the second fermentation steps, meaning that bacteria aren't needed at all. Thus, there's little chance of producing the undesirable amines.

To give the ML01 yeast the special ability to perform both types of fermentation, researchers inserted a gene from a bacteria species and a second gene from a wild yeast strain into the DNA of a strain of a commercial wine yeast.

Linda Bisson, a professor of viticulture and enology at UC Davis, said the biggest winemaking change in the use of ML01 is the elimination of bacteria from the fermentation process. The tradeoff: Those bacteria add new flavors and aromas to the wine.

She said skilled winemakers can avoid creating the headache-causing amines without sacrificing flavor.

The scientist who developed the ML01 yeast, University of British Columbia Professor Hennie van Vuuren, said wines made with it have fared well in taste tests against wines made from the same grapes using conventional fermentation techniques.

"The quality of the wine was found to be higher -- it was more full," he said from his home in British Columbia.

Researchers around the world have developed a variety of other genetically modified yeasts, but ML01 is the first on the market.

Grapevines, too, have long been a target for genetic engineering, with researchers hoping to give the plants desirable traits such as resistance to fungus and disease. It likely will be years, however, before genetically modified grapes are grown on a production scale.

Van Vuuren spent 16 years developing ML01. He receives no royalties from its commercial sales, and said his motivation to develop the yeast grew from personal experience: Red wine gave him headaches, and he wanted to change that. "I didn't do it for a big corporation," he said. "I did it because I loved wine."

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a recent commentary in the newspaper The Australian, University of Cape Town (South Africa) Professor Jennifer Thomson wrote that biotechnology is needed to feed the poor and regulation and opposition to these genetically modified foods, especially in Europe, is hurting those suffering in these impoverished nations.

Professor Thomson, who is also chairwoman of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation in Kenya, was a key speaker at the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) in Melbourne, Australia last week. In the article, she wrote that while much of the developing world currently struggles to find enough food for its people, bureaucrats in Europe sit and determine that their countries and others should be cautious in adopting genetically modified crops until they are deemed safe. In the mean time, though, thousands, and in many cases, hundreds of thousands of people are dying from malnutrition and starvation.

She points out that if sub-Saharan Africa continues to produce crops based on its present agricultural practice, there will be a cereal shortage of nearly 90 million tons by 2025. But certainly there is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, so how can it get to those people in need? And, how long will it take?

In the meantime, Professor Thomson states, genetically modified crops that provide increased yields are one of the ways to tackle the problem. But, how safe it the food derived from genetically modified crops? Professor Thomson points to comments from John Craig Venter, a scientist who led the team that sequenced the human genome, who has stated that no food crop has ever been tested for human safety as rigorously as genetically modified foods.

The bottom line, according to the author, is that multinational companies have little interest in improving the yields of crops in Africa, so Africans must produce these crops themselves. Professor Thomson explains that in South Africa, genetically modified crops currently being cultivated include herbicide-resistant maize and soybean, as well as insect resistant cotton and maize. She stated that each application for a commercial release is assessed by the Genetic Resource Centre of the National Department of Agriculture on a case-by-case basis.

Regarding regulations and opposition to genetically modified foods in Europe, Professor Thomson notes the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling from earlier this year, against the moratorium that the European Union (EU) had on GM crops since 1998. She wrote that Europe can no longer sit back and determine that the world should be cautious about the use of GM crops and because these countries do not want GM crops and foods, they should not prevent other nations, including those in Africa, from benefiting from the technology. She feels that by waiting and contemplating the possible dangers of genetically modified foods, bureaucrats in Europe are effectively committing Africans and those in other developing countries to years, even decades, of further starvation.

I completely agree with Professor Thomson’s assertions. As the world’s population continues to grow, biotechnology and genetically modified foods are going to be relied upon to meet these growing demands. It’s a shame that misinformation coming from those countries opposed to the technology is still sending the wrong message to the rest of the world. Biotechnology and genetically modified foods offer too many benefits to developing nations and hold such promise for the future of the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An interesting article regarding a survey on Genetically Modified Foods.

Alisa

GM foods ok as long as they taste good: survey
Marketing Web
August 14, 2006

Anything that makes food taste better is fine, according to 62 percent of South Africans familiar with genetically modified foods.

This was a finding by global market research company Synovate.

Genetically modified foods have been the subject of controversy amongst scientists, politicians and the media in some countries, but what do ordinary people think? To find out, Synovate surveyed 3,127 respondents in South Africa, Greece, Indonesia, Poland and Singapore.

While 84 percent of Greeks are extremely or somewhat familiar with these products, 92 percent of Indonesians have not heard of that term. A majority of respondents in South Africa and Poland are also familiar with genetically modified foods, while 65 percent of Singaporeans profess ignorance.

Among consumers who are aware of genetically modified foods, a majority in Greece (89 percent), Poland (68 percent), Indonesia (66 percent) and Singapore (59 percent) believe it may be harmful – whereas only one-third of South Africans agree.

Synovate found that despite these cautious feelings, 46 percent of Indonesians and 42 percent of Poles and Singaporeans believe that the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the risks. Some 45 percent of South Africans believe that the benefits outweigh the risk, more than half of those interviewed (54 percent) are already eating genetically modified foods.

Some 62 percent of South Africans also maintain that anything that makes food taste better tastes fine – as do 43 percent of Singaporeans. In South Africa, this sentiment is most strongly shared by the younger age groups. Only 53 percent of those aged 45 years and older agree with this statement, compared to 68 percent of 18–24 year olds.

Price also makes a difference, with 47 percent of South Africans and 41 percent of Singaporeans willing to buy genetically modified foods if they are cheaper than non-genetically modified products. By contrast, only 10 percent of Greeks display such price-consciousness.

The characteristics of genetically modified foods have not been actively marketed or communicated to South African consumers, notes Jon Salters, Synovate’s managing director for Sub-Saharan Africa.

”This has resulted in a general lack of awareness of their existence and associated risks and benefits. Given this lack of knowledge around GM foods, it is understandable that those products will make their way into the shopper’s basket if the price is right.”

Posted by AC Baumer at 7:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good commentary on biotechnology in California.

Alisa

Wise use of biotechnology critical to sustainable future
California Agriculture via CheckBiotech
August 14, 2006

As the Earth approaches its carrying capacity for human activity, we must adopt more sustainable ways to generate, distribute and consume resources. Considering the magnitude of the challenges we face, we should use all tools that can contribute to our long-term sustainability.

The ability to adapt plants, animals and microbes using the traditional and new tools of biotechnology has already had an impact and will certainly play an increasing role in agriculture. Conservation of the Earth’s biodiversity and its natural resources is similarly important for the future; it is our belief that the conservation of biodiversity and the judicious use of biotechnology are not mutually exclusive.

Agriculture faces many challenges including the protection of natural resources and the food supply. Just as society is concerned about the threat of emerging diseases such as avian flu and HIV to human health, we should also be concerned about the threat of diseases and pests to the sustainability of natural resources and the food supply.

Those who live in California’s coastal areas, and have watched the damage to oak stands by sudden oak death (SOD), can understand the vulnerability of more than just public health to emerging diseases. Scientists recently sequenced the genome for the SOD pathogen, a development that promises more rapid and conclusive diagnoses. Similarly, some scientists and growers believe that the best long-term answer to the bacterium responsible for Pierce’s disease of grapevines is to develop vines that are genetically resistant to the microbe.

A number of ecological and socioeconomic crises now loom on the horizon. Global climate change may lead to changing local conditions and the need to adapt crop varieties. Changes in international and domestic farm policies, as well as world markets, pose continuing threats to many of the world’s farmers.

Just as most oil production takes place abroad, ammonia-based fertilizers — a major part of the cost of agriculture — are increasingly purchased from foreign producers. Potassium and phosphorous supplies will likely be less stable in the future as well, and the production and application of all fertilizers are energy-intensive. All of these issues beg for biotechnical solutions to help farmers adapt and conserve precious resources.

Until the dawn of the industrial era, agriculture and forests provided the food, fiber and most of the energy necessary to sustain civilization. Given today’s increasingly unsustainable consumption of energy resources, agriculture will once again be called upon to significantly contribute to civilization’s energy needs. The world’s population will likely increase by about 50% in the next 50 years, and the standard of living worldwide is increasing. These trends will result in heightened world demand for food, fiber and energy.

To meet this demand, U.S. agriculture is on the cusp of a transition equivalent to when plant breeding and synthetic fertilizers led to corn and soybeans becoming dominant crops. To meet this challenge, there will likely be a transition to genetically adapted crops with a variety of input and output traits; the new agriculture will also focus on yet-to-be-developed “energy crops” that can be used for biomass or the production of liquid fuels such as ethanol.

One of the questions that California must address is what role our agriculture will play in producing the new energy crops. Biotechnology offers appealing opportunities to develop energy crops that are markedly different from food and fiber crops. They will be drought-resistant, use nitrogen efficiently and, ideally, be harvestable during much of the year. While the cost of production in California may preclude the cultivation of crops grown more efficiently in the Midwest, biotechnology could lead to the creation of energy crops adapted specifically to regions of our state that currently struggle to be economically competitive.

Biotechnology has not yet had an impact on California’s wide array of specialty crops, but research is being conducted to learn how to manipulate the genetics of these economically important crops; “Fruits of biotechnology struggle to emerge”). These crops are the basis of California’s competitive agricultural economy, and it is critical for UC to do the research that will keep this sector of our state’s economy competitive in global markets. The potential exists to provide consumers with specialty crops enhanced by biotechnology, and managed with scientific understanding of the risks and benefits.

We are proud of the accomplishments of the faculty, staff and students at the campuses and county offices of the UC Agricultural Experiment Station and UC Cooperative Extension. Our scientists are leaders in the development and adoption of agricultural biotechnology. Ultimate decisions about how this important technology is used by our society will involve a full airing of the societal and political implications of these new crops. It is our hope that we always have faculty at the forefront of developing technology, and providing insights into its implications.

This edition of California Agriculture addresses a number of issues surrounding the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology, including transgenic plants, fish and animals, and provides a glimpse of some of the important work being carried out in UC laboratories and field stations to address both.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article on how biotech seeds are helping U.S. Crops.

Alisa

Biotech Seeds Helping U.S. Crops Survive Heat, Analysts Say
by Millie Munshi
Bloomberg
8/10/06

The increased use of gene-altered seeds is helping to protect U.S. corn and soybean crops in parts of the Midwest from record heat and drought, analysts said.

The government tomorrow will project a corn crop of 10.745 billion bushels, according to the average estimate of 20 analysts in a Bloomberg survey. That would be little changed from the July forecast of 10.74 billion, even after weeks of above-normal temperatures and little rain. The estimate for the soybean crop will also be little changed, analysts said.

``The biotechnology has improved corn and soybeans to be able to withstand some of the Mother-Nature pressures that we have gotten,' said Kevin Dahlman, president of Dahlco Seeds in Cokato, Minnesota. A decade ago, farmers would be expecting substantial losses, Dahlman said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is scheduled to release updated estimates of the corn and soybean crops tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. in Washington. The projections are the first for this year's crops to be based on field surveys.

Gene-altered seeds such as those produced by Monsanto Co. and Dupont Co. were used to plant 61 percent of this year's corn crop, up from 52 percent last year, the USDA said June 30. The use of biotech soybean seeds rose to 89 percent from 87 percent. St. Louis-based Monsanto is the world's biggest developer of genetically modified crops.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article regarding increases in GM cotton in India.

Alisa

India's use of GM cotton seen doubling in 2007
By Biman Mukherji
Reuters India
August 10, 2006

India's cultivation of genetically modified cotton is expected to double over the next year as farmers opt for more disease-resistant seeds amid a rise in the country's total cotton production.

Out of a total area of 8.8 million hectares under the crop in the year to the end of Sept. 2006, 1.3 million were planted with transgenic Bt cotton.

"The coming season, it should be around 3.2 million hectares," said K.F. Jhunjhunwala, president of the East India Cotton Association, referring to the area used for Bt output in the next crop year to Sept. 2007.

He said the total area under cotton cultivation was likely to remain around 9 million hectares. "Over a period of time, Bt cotton may touch 70-75 percent of the production," he said.

Jhunjhunwala said the main reason for the switchover to GM seeds was the increased protection they offered against major pests like bollworm.

In 2002, India allowed farmers to plant transgenic cotton containing a gene from bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium species, which causes lethal paralysis in the digestive tract of bollworm.

The value of biotech crops is debated worldwide, with advocates saying they offer a vast improvement in food security, while critics warn of the possible emergence of new toxins and allergens.

Several Indian state-owned farm institutes, private seed companies and universities are conducting trials on genetically modified mustard, rice, potatoes and tobacco.

Rich harvests

Jhunjhunwala said the total cotton crop in the season ending September 2006 would be 24.5 million bales, slightly higher than the 24.3 million produced a year ago.

Exports would surge to a record 4.5 to 5 million bales from 1 million during the same comparable period because of carryover stocks and a good harvest.

Jhunjhunwala said production next year could easily touch 27 million bales, if there was a slight increase in yields.

"With a huge carryover still left and a good crop expected next year, we will have a good chance of exporting more next season. It can be 7 to 7.5 million bales," he added.

He said recent weather conditions would support a rise in production, although there had been a slight delay in the onset of monsoon at about the time sowing starts.

India should aim to increase its exports to China, where it is a distant second to the U.S. in market share, he added. While the U.S. has a 45 percent share of world cotton exports to China, India has only 12 percent.

Posted by AC Baumer at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a native of Missouri, I was very interested in reading this article regarding what the head of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) had to say about biotech developments in the St. Louis area. Hope you find this informative.

Alisa

Biotech leader likes what he sees in St. Louis area
by Rachel Melcher
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
August 9, 2006

On Monday, James Greenwood took a helicopter tour of St. Louis, and on Tuesday the head of the national Biotechnology Industry Organization ticked off the assets he saw that make this anything but a flyover area in cutting-edge research and commercialization.

In academia, basic science, leadership, entrepreneurial programs and companies big and small, the region has what it takes to succeed in biotechnology, said Greenwood, BIO's president and chief executive. The long-held view of the Midwest as a blank area between coastal high-tech hubs is changing.

"All the ingredients are here. St. Louis is in the early stages … but I think the future is rosy," he said.

­Green­wood's two days in the region culminated with a conference for industry and academic leaders, organized by the Missouri Biotechnology Industry Organization and held at St. Louis University. Nearly 200 attendees exchanged ideas and challenges in making the state a national hub for life sciences of all sorts, from health care and drugs to renewable fuels and farming.

Many cities and states are pinning economic development hopes on biotechnology -- finding the drug, vaccine, crop technology or renewable energy source that will help humankind while creating companies, jobs and huge revenue streams. Greenwood, who represents them all on the federal level, said they need not compete because there are so many targets to pursue.

"Biotechnology is not a zero-sum game," he said. "One city doesn't have to lose in order for another city to win."

Yet there are limited assets, noted others on the conference's crowded agenda.

Research funding from the National Institutes of Health, a cornerstone in making discoveries that can be commercialized, has been flat for three years, causing some promising projects to stall, said Dr. Adrian Di Bisceglie, acting chairman of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine and a pioneer in treatments for liver disease.

Research centers nationwide are competing to attract the top minds in the hottest areas of science, said William Duncan, president of the Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute. Missouri is doing well in assembling teams at Washington and St. Louis universities, the University of Missouri system, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Creve Coeur and the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City.

But the best students will not come if university facilities are not updated, as proposed by Gov. Matt Blunt in a plan scuttled by state lawmakers this spring, said Michael Nietzel, president of Missouri State University. Faculty will hesitate if St. Louis' urban renewal doesn't accelerate, Di Bisceglie said.

And researchers will think twice about Missouri if voters fail to pass a November referendum that would keep the General Assembly from making laws on stem cell research that are more restrictive than those at the federal level, other participants said.

"If you hold yourself out to be a city, or a region, or a state that's on the cutting-edge of life science research … it is wise to not be more restrictive than the national laws," said Greenwood, who is lobbying Congress on behalf of the controversial science.

U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, said Missouri is "not just at the center of the country, but we are at the center of a great political and scientific debate" regarding stem cell research. He and others encouraged BIO members to make their voices heard in state and federal legislatures and among the public.

U.S. Senators Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent said they are working to pass positive policies for biotechnology and encourage federal investments in Missouri.

Posted by AC Baumer at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a good article on how researchers are using genetically modified milk to help fight a deadly disease.

Regards,
Alisa

Gene-Modified Goat's Milk Fights Deadly Diarrhea
Forbes
August 8, 2006

U.S. researchers are hoping to milk genetically-modified goats for a new way to protect children against intestinal/diarrheal diseases, which kill more than two million children worldwide each year.

Animal scientists at the University of California, Davis, studied milk produced by transgenic goats with the gene for an antibacterial enzyme (lysozyme) found in human breast milk. When this milk was fed to young goats and pigs, it altered their intestinal bacteria.

This research may lead to the development of milk that can protect children from intestinal/diarrheal illnesses, the scientists said. The findings were published in the August issue of the journal Transgenic Research.

"This goat's milk represents one of the first transgenic food products that has the potential to really benefit human health," study author Jim Murray said in a prepared statement. "The results of the study indicate that the protective, antibacterial characteristics of lysozyme-rich human breast milk are also present in milk produced by transgenic goats that carry the gene for lysozyme."

Lysozyme limits the growth of bacteria that cause intestinal infections and diarrhea, and encourages the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria.

"This study underscores the potential for using biotechnology to improve the healthfulness of the milk of dairy animals by introducing the beneficial properties of human milk into dairy animals," Murray said.

It may be possible to use this method to produce lysozyme-rich powdered milk, and eventually, herds of transgenic dairy goats for use by developing nations.

Larger, more in-depth studies are needed to examine the other possible benefits of the lysozyme-rich milk from the transgenic goats, the study authors said.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I came across a very interesting commentary in the Rocky Mountain News the other day, written by Dr. Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko, authors of The Frankenfood Myth, entitled “Modified Solution.” The article asks the question “Can something be done to help farmers with drought?” The answer, according to the authors, is genetic modification. But, that may be easier said than done.

The authors state that a severe, prolonged drought -which in some places has lasted five years-has dramatically cut the winter wheat crop for farmers in many of the major wheat growing regions in the United States. They point out that American farmers are expected to harvest about 1.26 billion bushels of winter wheat, down 16 percent from last year’s crops, according to forecasts released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Hard red winter-wheat crops, grown from Texas to Montana and used to make bread, were estimated at 659 million bushels, down 29 percent from 2005.

Genetically modified crops offer the solution. The authors write that genetic modification gives plant breeders the tools to make old crop plants do spectacular new things. We all know that genetically modified crops can help farmers produce higher yields, with lower inputs and reduced impact on the environment. We also know that some biotech crops are designed to be resistant to pests and diseases that ravage crops, or be resistant to herbicides, while others possess improved nutritional quality.

But, the authors write, the greatest boon of all in the long term may be the ability of genetically modified crop varieties to tolerate periods of drought and other water-related stresses. Where water is unavailable for irrigation, genetically modified crop varieties able to grow in low moisture or drought conditions could boost yields and lengthen the time that farmland is productive in these regions. They point out that scientists have identified genes that regulate water utilization and inserted them into important crop plants and these new varieties are able to grow with smaller amounts or lower quality water, such as water that has been recycled or that contains large amounts of natural mineral salts. With genetically modified crops, farmers will get more crop for the drop.

A few months ago, a coalition of major wheat industry groups called for changes to make American wheat more competitive, in particular, the introduction of genetically modified varieties of wheat. According to the authors, that’s easier said than done.

Excessive regulations, which the authors state flies in the face of the scientific consensus that genetic modification is essentially an extension of earlier techniques for crop improvement, adds millions of dollars to the development costs of each new biotech variety. These extra costs, and also the endless, misguided controversy over cultivating these precisely crafted biotech varieties, can discourage scientists from further research and development of these crops.

I completely agree with the authors’ opinions. Farmers in the United States are the primary producers of wheat for products that are distributed throughout the world. Even globally, there are many nations where wheat is a vital staple and in these nations, environmental conditions are unfavorable for growing these crops continuously. For these reasons and so many more, we need genetically modified crops, in spite of regulations and the unwarranted assertions made by those opposed to these innovations. As I stated before, adopting genetically modified varieties offers great promise for the future. The advantages for using biotechnology around the world are too numerous, especially for farmers and consumers. No food industry, including the wheat industry, can afford to be left behind.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A great article on the production of biotech papaya in Bangladesh.

Alisa

Biotech papaya could increase production by three-fold
Financial Express Bangladesh
August 7, 2006

The transgenic papaya, a biotech virus resistant variety, could increase production of the fruit by three-fold compared to the traditional papaya yield, biotechnology experts said in the city, reports BSS.

They said that the virus resistant high yielding transgenic papaya could make a tremendous impact in making a sweeter, riper and more affordable papaya with a increased production of 63 kg per tree per year which is now 21 kg per tree in an average.

In 1992, a virus called Papaya Ring Spot (PRSV) was first detected at Pune in India where 95 per cent of Hawaii's papaya was being grown, culminating in a 50 per cent reduction in production by 1998, a biotech expert Craig Meisner said.

In that year a virus resistant variety was invented by using genetic engineering resistant to viruses through the introduction of the coat protein gene of the virus into the host plant. M Imadul Hoque, country coordinator of South Asia Bio-safety Programme said that during the last two decades in Bangladesh, the PRSV had reduced papaya production bringing the average yield down to 21 kg per plant in a year.

The nutritional impact of the new papaya will increase livelihoods and may give Bangladesh a chance to reach its Millennium Development Goal (MDG) sooner than later in terms of food security, nutrition and health, he observed.

A USAID programme, originally funded by the International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) is presently helping to place transgenic papaya in the hands of the Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council (BARC) for experimental testing and possible release for gardening in commercial basis.

So far, the application has been scrutinised by BARI (Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute, BARC and the national bio-safety committee to ensure its fulfillment of the government guidelines for the entry of transgenic papaya for experimental purpose, sources said.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article regarding the need of biotechnology in Vietnam.

Alisa

Mekong growers must think of biotechnology, says researcher
Vietnam News
August 5, 2006

Cuu Long (Mekong) Delta farmers must raise awareness of the importance of using biotechnology in agricultural production to improve quality, ensure food product safety and sanitation, scientists say.

Dr Nguyen Van Ba, working at the Biotechnology Development and Research Institute, Can Tho University said the overuse of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and antibiotics would result in unsafe products and exhaustion of arable land.

Most farmers no longer used organic fertilisers, a traditional material for crop cultivation, he said.

The bio-technology industry covers a wide area, from grafting young plants, improving plants and animal hybrids and modifying crop genes, to improving crop quality and productivity.

In the Mekong River Delta, Ba said priority should be given to research and the trial planting of pest-resistant, drought-tolerant and high-yielding rice strains to produce high-quality special rice for export.

He said the research, application and development of the infant bio-tech industry, which would require more labour and money, wouldn’t bring immediate results, but would result in great benefits for the national economy in the long run.

The government has set the target of using biotechnology for farm production on 80 per cent of arable land by 2010 in a major effort to limit the overuse of chemical products.

More than 200 foreign chemical, fertiliser and pesticide companies widely advertise the use of agro-chemicals to improve crop quality and quantity.

Following the government’s approval of the key plan to develop and apply bio-technology in agricultural production earlier this year, many provinces in the Mekong Delta have organised scientific seminars and invited scientists and investors to join the fledgling bio-technology industry.

Ba said the training of biotechnology experts remained inadequate, well below the demand. HCM City and Can Tho Universities every year train only 300 bio-techology engineers.

Meanwhile, small and medium-sized companies in the region hesitate to invest in bio-technology for farm production because of the lack of skilled experts.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A good article regarding the latest legal developments regarding biotechnology and genetically modified foods in France.

Alisa

Legal boost for French GM sector
By Anthony Fletcher
Food Navigator
August 3, 2006

Two recent judicial decisions could be the turning point for biotech cultivation in France, according to a new USDA GAIN report.

The first overturned a lower court ruling exonerating test plot destroyers. The second, reported recently on FoodNavigator, required Greenpeace to remove from its website names and locations of biotech corn growers.

Both decisions, according to the USDA report, could help provide a more conducive environment for biotech cultivation in France.

On June 22nd, the Orleans Court of Appeals upheld the original conviction of 49 people found guilty of destroying biotech plots belonging to Monsanto. This decision overturned a lower court ruling last December releasing the defendants from liability.

The Appeals Court reinstated a two-month jail sentence for one defendant and the others received suspended jail sentences and a 1,000 fine. The Court will continue to investigate Monsanto's claim for 390,000 in damages.

Monsanto welcomed the Court's decision stating that it "implements the law, protecting farmers' property as well as authorised and monitored experimentation." The French planting seed organisations commented that the Court's decision underlined the legitimacy of the "right to conduct research."

And on July 26, Greenpeace was judicially required to remove from its website a map of France with the locations of fields of biotech corn, as well as the names of biotech corn growers, because of the privacy infringement. The farmers whose names were indicated on Greenpeace website had sued Greenpeace, with the help of the French Corn Growers Association (AGPM).

In reaction, some activists destroyed some biotech corn in one of these fields, marking a large cross which was photographed from an helicopter by a nationally-known photographer.

Anti-GM pressure groups therefore appear to be targeting France just as the country appears to be growing receptive to the technology. According to another recent USDA GAIN report, France is set for an explosion in GM corn planting this year.

The Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN) study said that French Bt corn acreage is expected to boom from 500 ha in 2005 to 5,000 ha in 2006, as a result of the economic advantages experienced by Bt corn growers in 2005.

This would suggest that governments in member states and at the EU level believe that GM technology will be a feature of food production in the future. Having been criticised in the past for failing to develop consistent and science-based regulatory processes governing biotechnology, the bloc appears to be increasingly moving towards enabling the GM sector to flourish.

A major impetus for this of course was the recent WTO ruling, which said that the European ban on GM imports contravened the rules of free trade.

But opposition at the grassroots remains. In France, the group of anti-GM protestors that call themselves 'Faucheurs Volontaires' (Voluntary Cutters) will continue to threaten the biotech industry, and have already claimed that they will attack commercial biotech crops.

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

Here's a good article on the latest developments in creating genetically modified omega-3 fatty acid.

Alisa

Industry races to get green, GM omega-3 from plants
by Stephen Daniells
NutraIngredients
August 2, 2006

Industry giants are locked in a “fish oil arms race” to develop genetically modified crops that could challenge the supremacy of fish as the best source of omega-3 fatty acid, with both BASF and DuPont reporting progress in the field.

Fears about dwindling fish stocks, coupled with the proposed risk of pollutants from oily fish, have pushed some in academia and industry to investigate the extraction of omega-3 from alternative sources.

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) extracted from non-GM microalgae is already on the market, as is plant-source alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), a shorter chain omega-3 that is less bioavailable for humans.

But it is thought that other plants like soybeans and Brassica could offer a sustainable and pollutant-free source of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) as well as DHA – assuming the genetically modified tag that comes along with the source is accepted by consumers.

The principle is to add genes that convert shorter chain omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, found naturally in the plants, into more desirable longer chain fatty acids.

DuPont, one of the major movers and shakers in this area, revealed last week that it has developed a transgenic soybean with a long-chain omega-3 content of 40 per cent, and is heading for field testing of the crop.

DuPont's focus has been on maximising both EPA and DHA, and scientists based at the DuPont Experimental Station in Delaware, have expanded the standard procedure of desaturating and elongating the shorter chain fatty acids by using co-expression of an additional enzyme, omega-3 microsomal desaturase from the fungus Saprolegnia diclina, to convert the omega-6 very long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (VLC-PUFAs)to omega-3s.

Anthony Kinney from Dupont told attendees at the 17th International Symposium on Plant Lipids that the company has achieved “target long-chain PUFA contents up to 40 weight per cent of the oil of homozygous soybean seeds.”

BASF, meanwhile, is an industrial partner the EU-sponsored LIPGENE project, an EU Sixth Framework Programme Integrated Project and is made up of a consortium of 25 research laboratories across Europe, including Trinity College Dublin, University of Reading, University of Oslo.

Johnathan Napier, a professor of Crop Performance and Improvement (CPI) from Rothamsted Research and member of the LIPGENE project, told NutraIngredients.com that crops producing EPA have already been developed that exceed fatty acids levels found in fish (between 10 and 20 per cent).

Professor Napier said that the main crops being looked at include by LIPGENE and beyond include linseed, soybean, Arabidopsis plants, Brassica juncea, and oilseed rape.

The science behind the crops consists of inserting genes into the plant genome that will encode for addition chemical steps in fatty acid production in the plant.

Crops such as linseed are a naturally rich source of omega-3 fatty acid, ALA - a precursor to the longer chain EPA and DHA – as well as the omega-6 fatty acid, arachidonic acid (AA) – a precursor for the longer chain omega-6 fatty acids.

To transform ALA to EPA and then further to DHA, genes are required that encode for the desaturation of ALA (by the enzyme, delta6-desaturase) to form stearidonic acid (SDA). An enzyme (malonyl co-enzyme A) then elongates the SDA from an 18 carbon chain to a 20-carbon chain, and further desaturation, this time by the delta5-desaturase enzyme, results in the production of EPA.

For DHA production, two more genes are needed for further elongation and desaturation, making DHA a significantly bigger challenge for scientists.

The enzymes which act to desaturate and elongate the fatty acids also work on the omega-6 fatty acids found in plants, with linolenic acid converted to gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) and then to arachinodonic acid (ARA).

The first report of EPA accumulation was reported in 2004 in transgenic Arabidopsis plants, with a level of 3.0 per cent obtained. ARA levels were measured at 6.6 per cent.

Brassica juncea plants have also reported positive and promising results. A recent study reported ARA and EPA accumulation of 25 and 15 per cent, respectively.

“B. juncea is a highly efficient host for the synthesis of ARA and EPA to high levels,” wrote Professor Napier in Physiologia Plantarum.

But the news has not all been good. Linseed, considered an ideal crop because it contains naturally high concentrations of ALA, proved disappointing when the transgenic plants were produced. It was found that, while production of the omega-3 and omega-6 intermediates, SDA and GLA, averaged over 25 per cent, the subsequent longer chain EPA and ARA was only formed in small quantities.

The reason behind the disappointing end concentrations of EPA, explained Professor Napier, is the endogenous biochemistry of the linseed that limits production of the elongated omega-3 fatty acid.

“Thus, although linseed was chosen as a suitable host for the reverse-engineering of omega-3 very long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (VLC-PUFAs) on the basis of very high levels of the precursor ALA, endogenous channelling activities hindered the accumulation of omega-3 fatty acids such as EPA,” wrote Professor Napier in a recent review of the subject.

In other words, linseed “doesn't work.”

DuPont and BASF are the main two players in this field, and the two companies are locked, said Napier, in a “fish oil arms race.”

But the field is not closed to others, with Monsanto focussing its research on GM canola crops that produce SDA, the intermediate between ALA and EPA.

The reason for this, said Napier, is that it easier to make SDA than to go all the way to EPA and, eventually, DHA.

Using genes isolated from the commercially grown fungus, Mortierella alpina, Monsanto has reported SDA accumulation of about 16 per cent of total fatty acid content.

While EPA levels have been creeping steadily upwards, subsequent production of DHA has only been reported in small quantities.

This remains the main biotechnological challenge left, says Napier - to go from EPA to significant production of DHA in the crops..

“That will take a technological leap forward,” said Napier.

The other major challenge is for consumer acceptance of omega-3 from genetically modified crop sources.

“This is the conundrum,” said Napier. “You have the health benefits of omega-3 coming from a sustainable source, but on the flip side the crops are GM.”

“It will be interesting to see how it pans out.”

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a great article on recent discussions in Africa about biotechnology.

Regards,
Alisa

Panel discusses Biotech for African Development
by Ochieng' Ogodo
SciDev.Net
July 28, 2006

Researchers and policymakers met in Kenya recently to discuss ways that biotechnology could contribute to the continent's development.

The meeting held on 25-28 July was the 4th gathering of the High-Level Panel on Biotechnology, set up by the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa's Development to provide policy advice to African leaders.

The panel discussed a draft report entitled Freedom to Innovate: Biotechnology in Africa's Development, which it plans to refine and submit to the annual summit of African heads of state in January 2007. It has requested comments on the report from researchers, policymakers and the general public.

The report identifies ways of building the continent's capacity to use biotechnology to improve health, agriculture and industry, and urges African countries and regions to collaborate on biotechnology research.

The panel's co-chair, Calestous Juma of Harvard University, United States, said that people who say biotechnology is being forced on Africa have a limited view of what it is taking place and are only considering genetically modified (GM) organisms.

He pointed out that serious research in various aspects of biotechnology was already underway in African countries including Egypt, Kenya and South Africa.

Panel member Tewolde Egziabher, the director-general of Ethiopia's Environmental Protection Authority, said that biosafety issues relating to genetic modification are a small but vital component of biotechnology as a whole.

He said some industrialised countries are trying to force GM products onto African countries that have no regulatory frameworks or laws in place to mitigate adverse effects that these products could generate.

He said such countries are undermining the Cartagena Protocol, an international instrument intended to protect biodiversity from potential harm posed by GM organisms.

Juma, however, is less worried about biosafety. "As far as I am concerned GM products are as safe as conventional ones, and both have risks," he said.

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