GMO Food for Thought

Sydney Morning Herald
By Mark Metherell
February 28, 2007

Excerpt...

AUSTRALIA is falling behind in the rapid world growth of more productive biotech crops, such as drought-tolerant and pest resistant strains, the former deputy prime minister says.

"Food versus fuel" fights over the diversion of crops to biofuels threaten to hit Australia unless this country dramatically upgrades crop development, John Anderson believes.

The Nationals MP has called for a rethink on the states' bans against genetically-modified food crops. "If we are going to avoid an ugly stand-off over food versus fuel, we are going to have to spend a lot more on plant research … because it is very likely that a large part of the answer on renewable energy will be biofuels," Mr Anderson told the Herald.

The huge potential for genetically modified crops, including the use of non-grain crops and residues to supplement oil as a fuel, was being lost to Australia because of irrational fears.

"Many of the current bans have been driven by concern about the unknown and fears of the so-called 'Frankenstein food' factor but the reality is more and more GM crops are being grown around the world."
Australia has about 200,000 hectares planted in biotech crops, most of it modified cotton, compared with the estimated total world area of more than 100 million hectares, half of it in the United States.

The local distaste for modified foods meant Australia was "a First World country growing Third World crops", said another Government MP, Mal Washer.

Vaccines in bananas, modified peanuts free of a potentially lethal allergen, vitamin A in rice and grains containing therapeutic Omega 3 fish oil were all possible, but out of bounds in Australia, Dr Washer said.

Australians would not eat modified food yet happily injected themselves with genetically modified medicines, such as insulin, he said.

Dr Washer, who raised the issue at the Coalition party room meeting yesterday, told the Herald later that the federal and state governments needed to counter irrational barriers to modified food.

State governments, including NSW, have imposed moratoriums on genetically modified crops, because of crop contamination and export marketing concerns, despite an approval granted by the federal Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in 2003 for commercial cultivation of a modified strain of herbicide-tolerant canola.

Genetically modified foods can be sold in Australia provided they are labelled as such, but only a "tiny number" of modified products, mostly imported, are sold, according to the regulatory agency Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.

The CSIRO says no evidence has been found anywhere of risks from eating genetically modified foods. "If food prices are to remain low in real terms, advantage must be taken of advances in all stages of the food production chain, including GM plants and animals," the CSIRO said.

Mr Anderson said a taste of the explosive potential of the food versus fuel conflict was already being experienced elsewhere.

Mexicans had rioted over tortilla prices driven up by demand for corn to produce biofuel. Unrest had broken out in South Africa over competition for sorghum, used to make beer and its growing role as a biofuel.
Mr Anderson, who retires from politics at this year's federal election, says his priority is to campaign for Australia to expand its effort on the development of new generation food and fuel plants.

"This will turn into a race between food and fuel," he said, unless Australia grappled with the latest technology in food and biofuel production that would be of crucial significance to drought-hit Australia.

On a visit to the US, he said he saw drought-tolerant crops which produced more grain and biomass with less water than required by conventional crops.

Commentary by GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe

Grow GM Crops or Face Strife: Anderson
- Mark Metherell, Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 28, 2007 http://www.smh.com.au

In this item the SMH reports that Australia is falling behind in the rapid world growth of more productive biotech crops, such as drought-tolerant and pest resistant strains, the former deputy prime minister says. "Food versus fuel" fights over the diversion of crops to biofuels threaten to hit Australia unless this country dramatically upgrades crop development, John Anderson believes.

The Nationals MP has called for a rethink on the states' bans against genetically-modified food crops. "If we are going to avoid an ugly stand-off over food versus fuel, we are going to have to spend a lot more on plant research … because it is very likely that a large part of the answer on renewable energy will be biofuels," Mr Anderson told the Herald.

The huge potential for genetically modified crops, including the use of non-grain crops and residues to supplement oil as a fuel, was being lost to Australia because of irrational fears. "Many of the current bans have been driven by concern about the unknown and fears of the so-called 'Frankenstein food' factor but the reality is more and more GM crops are being grown around the world."

The local distaste for modified foods meant Australia was "a First World country growing Third World crops", said another Government MP, Mal Washer.

Vaccines in bananas, modified peanuts free of a potentially lethal allergen, vitamin A in rice and grains containing therapeutic Omega 3 fish oil were all possible, but out of bounds in Australia, Dr Washer said. Australians would not eat modified food yet happily injected themselves with genetically modified medicines, such as insulin, he said.

Dr Washer, who raised the issue at the Coalition party room meeting yesterday, told the Herald later that the federal and state governments needed to counter irrational barriers to modified food. State governments, including NSW, have imposed moratoriums on genetically modified crops, because of crop contamination and export marketing concerns, despite an approval granted by the federal Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in 2003 for commercial cultivation of a modified strain of herbicide-tolerant canola...

...Mr Anderson said a taste of the explosive potential of the food versus fuel conflict was already being experienced elsewhere. Mexicans had rioted over tortilla prices driven up by demand for corn to produce biofuel. Unrest had broken out in South Africa over competition for sorghum, used to make beer and its growing role as a biofuel...

...On a visit to the US, he said he saw drought-tolerant crops which produced more grain and biomass with less water than required by conventional crops.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:51 PM | Permalink

EurActiv.com
February 26, 2007

Excerpt...

A debate organised by Friends of Europe, an EU policy think-tank, explored whether the EU's strict authorisation procedures on genetically modified food are preventing developing countries from investing in potentially lifesaving technologies.

Related Documents:

LinksDossier: Genetically Modified Organisms

LinksDossier: Life Sciences & Biotechnology

Background:

Other news

• Better GMO labelling backed by a million...
• Austria finds backing for GMO bans
• 'Happy animals make good food', says EU...
• EU accepts trade ruling on GMOs
• EU to force GMO counter-test over US...

On 20 February 2007, EU environment ministers voted against a Commission proposal to lift a ban imposed by Hungary on MON810 GM maize, which the country claims has harmful effects on European plants and animals.
This is the third time that member states have rejected Commission attempts to lift national bans on the growing of certain GM crops, despite assurances from the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) technical experts that they are safe.

EU ministers also failed to authorise the marketing of a genetically modified carnation...which effectively prevented any GMOs from being marketed in the EU for a five-year period - was lifted in 2003.

Large-scale GMO producers, such as the US, Argentina and Brazil, as well as large biotech companies including Monsanto, Sygenta and Bayer have been pushing for the EU to ease its authorisation procedure and let more GM crops in, resulting in a case at the World Trade Organisation (EurActiv 22/11/06).

Issues:

A key argument put forward by GM producers is that GM technology could be the key to solving developing countries' hunger problem.

• Does Europe have the right to systematically reject GMOs – even those that fulfil their own safety requirements?
• Is Europe, through its stance on GMOs and strict authorisation procedures, stifling the development of a technology crucial to boosting food production and breaking the cycle of malnutrition and starvation in developing countries?

In a debate organised by think-tank Friends of Europe , green NGOs rejected this idea.

Positions:

Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard said that the EU should not dismiss all GMOs automatically, because the technology could help to solve developing countries' hunger problem.

"In a global world, the EU's actions impact on other countries," she said, explaining that developing countries' inability to export to the EU discourages them from investing in and producing GMOs.

She believes that the scepticism in Europe about genetic engineering in agriculture stems from the fact that few GMOs "have brought unquestionable benefits to the European table". But she underlined the fact that the EU must assess each GMO on its own merits, because crops that can resist diseases and insects can be grown in the third world.

"Like it or not, GMOs are here to stay," she said, adding that the EU has a special role to play in the debate because it can contribute to ensuring that GMOs are used in a safe and beneficial way for consumers by, for example, investing public research in this field.

Per Pindstrup-Andersen, Senior Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), stressed: "Not a single person has died or become sick because of GM foods." Nevertheless, he agreed that more studies should be carried out on allergies, etc… "The EU could have generated a lot of information on GMOs during the moratorium, but it simply sat on its hands," he complained.

Although he conceded that Europeans have the right to know about the benefits and risks, he criticised the EU's dogmatism in refusing all GMOs.

"The debate in Europe is very one-sided," he said, adding: "If millions of farmers in India and China are willing to break laws to get genetically engineered food, there must be a reason."

He underlined the importance of understanding the risk-benefit trade-off for developing countries, saying that for many the question is not "Is genetic engineering the best solution?" but rather "Is there any other solution?"
For the moment, he said, Europe is standing in the way of developing countries solving their own problems because of its straight-out rejection of GMOs. "Developing countries are scared of losing their export market to Europe if they start cultivating GM crops," he said.

But, he agreed that Europe has an important role to play in encouraging the development of biosafety regulations, which are often very weak in developing countries.

Simon Barber, Director of External Relations, EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, said that the public had "very limited knowledge" about GMOs and about agriculture in general. He accused green groups of spreading unfounded rumours, saying: "After ten years of GM plants, what negative effects have ever been seen?"

He added: "Many other plant-breeding technologies are just as scary and do not only produce benefits…To categorically say that the technology should not be used is not ethical."

Furthermore, he said that imposing a ban on GMOs was not feasible anyway as "the international trading system simply cannot segregate crops on a 100% basis".

Fouad Hamdan, director of Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), believes that it is an exaggeration to say that GMOs can save developing countries, because there are only four types of GM crops: soy, maize, oilseed rape and cotton.

The majority of these crops are destined for feeding animals, not people, in rich countries.

Furthermore, he said, GM crops only benefit large farmers, not small ones who cannot afford expensive patented seeds. And, as for the environment, he said that the use of pesticides has actually increased in Europe following the introduction of GMOs.

He refuted the argument that NGOs were stirring up fear on false pretences, saying: "I still believe that the benefits of GM food are almost nil…NGOs are working with independent scientific facts, not with biotech-industry funded research."

Therefore, he concluded: "The EU can with a lot of confidence tell developing countries to be cautious too. The organic market is the future.”

But, a South African representative said: "Most Africans don’t have the luxury of choice of what to eat and what not to eat. If genetic engineering can bring some relief to this food insecurity, then let it be. And if it is too risky, then come up with another solution."

Latest & next steps:

EurActiv would like to hear your views on this debate. Contributions can be sent to letters@euractiv.com .

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:35 PM | Permalink

GMO Africa Blog
James Wachai
February 26, 2007

In a recent meeting, African Union (AU) Ministers of Agriculture endorsed the development of the African Seed and Biotechnology Program (ASPB). The ministers, meeting in Libreville, Gabon, seemed to acknowledge that Africa is in short supply of quality seeds, and that's why its agricultural sector remains in the doldrums. This situation is self-inflicted, and has more to do with the politicization of seed technologies. It's encouraging that the AU is making deliberate efforts to promote biotechnology in the continent.

Africa is financially constrained to develop high-yielding seeds. It doesn't have the technological know-how. Worse, scientists who could have been the force behind new seeds development have fled to developed countries to seek greener pastures.

The reality, then, is that developed countries are the sole sources of high-yielding seeds. Through genetic modification, biotechnology companies in these countries have managed to develop drought and pesticide resistant seeds whose returns have been great. The bounty harvests farmers in the U.S. Canada, and developing countries such as China and India realize from biotech seeds only attest to their productivity.

Biotech companies have always sought to correct this situation, by extending these benefits to farmers in developing countries. But their efforts have been met with resistance. A cabal of anti-technology activists continues to spread lies that multinational biotech companies seek to colonize the seed industry.

I am wondering if AU Agriculture Ministers addressed this issue during their Libreville meeting. If they want the ASPB program to succeed, they must start viewing multinational biotech companies as agents of development. They must extend a hand of friendship to them knowing very well it's their farmers who stand to benefit.

I note that Malawi and Zambia were represented in this meeting. These two are, perhaps, are the most vocal critics of genetically modified foods in the African continent. How will they be good overseers of the envisioned seed and biotechnology program with their current hostile policies towards genetically modified foods?

ASPB is a good idea, but its architects must demonstrate by words and deeds that they're genuinely for it. They could do so by initiating agricultural biotechnology sensitization programs in their respective countries. This way farmers will be aware they're dealing with a progressive technology.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:21 AM | Permalink

Agbioworld
Boie Conrad Dublin
February 20, 2007

Excerpt...

Food derived from genetically modified (GM) plants is as safe as those produced from conventional sources, according to the Abu Dhabi-based Regional Director of the Agricultural Trade Office of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), David J. Williams Tuesday during a round table discussion with the press at the US Embassy in Bayan.

Williams' visit was prompted by allegations about the dangers of GM foods raised by two Greenpeace activists during a press conference held in Kuwait last week. Countering the issues raised by Arnaud Apoteker and Andi Freimuller on the supposed adverse effects GM foods could have on human health, Williams said that US regulatory process ensures that all biotech products that are commercially grown, processed, sold, and consumed are as safe for the environment and for human and animal health as their conventional counterparts. According to him, the US government's regulatory system is transparent, predictable, open to public comment, and based on sound science. It is continuously reviewed and evaluated to ensure it meets the challenges of this evolving technology.

He said that the agencies responsible for its regulation are the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration or FDA. In further touting the safety of GM foods, Williams cited the European Commission's Directorate General for Research's report which states: "Research on the GM (Genetically Modified) - plants and derived products so far developed and marketed ... has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment ... Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods.

"GM foods available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health in any other form than their conventional counterparts." According to a June 2005 report by the World Health Organization, Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: and evidence-based study." The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) report "The State of Food and Agriculture, 2003-2004" further states: "Thus far, in those countries where transgenic (GM) crops have been grown, there have been no verifiable reports of these causing significant health or environmental harm."

Numerous organizations and scientists have determined that biotech foods pose no threat to humans or the environment. These include the French Academy of Sciences, the 3,200 scientists who sponsored a joint declaration on biotech foods, and numerous scientific studies - including a joint study conducted by seven national academies of science (The national academies of the United States, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, plus the Royal Society of London and the Third World Academy of Sciences.Data provided to newsmen shows that biotech crops are farmed worldwide with 8.5 million farmers planting a total of 89.9 million hectares of biotechnology crops in 2005. The United States was the leader with 49.2 million hectares, followed by Argentina with 16.8 million hectares; Brazil with 9.2 million hectares; Canada with 5.6 million hectares; and China with 3.2 million hectares.

During 2006, in the Unites States, 61 percent of corn area, 89 percent of soybean area, and 83 percent of cotton area was planted with biotechnology crops.Other countries growing biotechnology crops include: India, Iran, Philippines, Australia, South Africa, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany. Soybeans account for 60 percent of global biotech area, followed by corn at 24 percent, cotton at 11 percent, and canola at 5 percent. According to a 2004 study by the University of Minnesota, the global commercial value of biotechnology crops was $44 billion during the 2003/2004 crop year.

Despite all the scientific data and evidence showing the safety of biotech products some EU member countries issued bans on GM foods led by France, Germany. Greece, Italy and Austria which prompted the US, Argentina and Canada to file a case with the World Trade Organization (WTO) which ruled, in 2006, that the European Union's moratorium on approving agricultural biotech products and unjustified EU member bans on previously approved biotech products was unjustified. The WTO Panel found that the EU had presented no scientific or regulatory justification for its moratorium....

With respect to the bans on biotech crops approved by the EU prior to the adoption of a moratorium, the Panel upheld the United States' claim that, in light of safety assessments issued by the EU's own scientists, the member state bans were not supported by scientific evidence and were thus inconsistent with WTO rules. David J. Williams assumed office as the USDA's Agricultural Trade Office Regional Director in August last year after a four-year stint in Mexico and prior to that, in India.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:07 PM | Permalink

The East African
By ESTHER NAKKAZI
Special Correspondent

Excerpt...

Uganda could soon introduce genetically modified bananas after a successful genetically engineered sweet banana variety proved resistant to pests and diseases.

The technology will improve the quality of banana, an important food and cash crop whose production has declined due to diseases, especially the banana wilt disease.

Genetically engineered bananas will also contribute to food security and improve household incomes. Almost 24.5 per cent of Ugandan household’s income is contributed by bananas. Some 70 per cent of farmers grow them as a staple food as well as for brewing local liquor.

Scientists estimate that if the technology is applied to other varieties, the country could save up to $8 billion it is said to have earmarked in the next five years for fighting the banana bacterial wilt disease.

The disease is currently ravaging the country and spreading to Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania.

The genetically engineered variety was developed by Geoffrey Arinaitwe, a Ugandan scientist based in Belgium who has now applied to the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) for a permit to import it to Uganda.

“The Council has already cleared it for field testing after importation from Belgium.

This innovation will pave the way for research on other varieties to make them resistant to diseases,” said Arthur Makara, the biosafety desk officer at the Council, the country’s leading institution for science, technology and innovation development.

The tested banana type will be brought to the Kawanda Research Institute (Kari), which has just completed construction of a greenhouse to field test bananas for resistance to bacterial wilt and black sigatoka fungal disease, said Andrew Kiggundu, a plant biotechnologist at Kari.

The bacterial wilt is highly destructive, wiping out at least 90 per cent of the fruit on the trees it affects. When it affects a tree, it becomes poisonous to both humans and animals.

Scientists say the commonest way the disease spreads is through bees...

Mr Kiggundu said more crops have been earmarked for testing before the end of this year at Namulonge Research Institute and the National Agricultural Research Organisation (Naro).

Other crops that are slated for field testing at Kari are genetically modified cassava, which is resistant to the mosaic virus, sweet potatoes rich in Vitamin A content and BT cotton.

“The varieties we have developed have increased resistance to pests, are nutritive and fast growing,” said Mr Kiggundu.

But scientists have warned that although the genetically engineered crops are being developed, they may not reach farmers any time soon as the country has no legal framework to enable their distribution.

“We have new technology but we are being left behind because there is no policy in place,” said Dr Charles Mugoya of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (Asereca).

“The GMOs will increase farm incomes and minimise environmental impact as there is pesticide reduction. We need technology to drive our food production,” said Dr Mugoya during the launch of the 2006 Global Status of Commercialised Biotech report in Kampala.

The government is in the process of putting in place an enabling law to allow the distribution of the GMO bananas.
The National Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy, which will guide the activities and distribution of GMO resources, is awaiting approval by parliament.

“We in parliament will do everything possible to ensure that the biotechnology policy is approved and biosafety bill enacted into law,” said John Arimpa, vice chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources.

Uganda has three banana varieties — sweet bananas, plantain and the East African highland bananas (matooke), which are only grown and consumed in East Africa.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:56 AM | Permalink

Business Day
Temba Nolutshungu
February 20, 2007

Excerpt...

EUROPEAN consumer panic and European Union (EU) regulations about genetically modified (GM) foods threaten millions of starving Africans, who need cheap and reliable crops. Greenpeace has just garnered a million signatures around Europe for a petition to the EU demanding labels for traces of GM organisms in food. This time last year, Zambia banned famine relief containing GM food. Uganda and Kenya are wavering and millions of people are starving in Africa right now. GM food may not solve malnutrition and starvation by itself, but it would make a huge difference.

Remember, we are talking about a product that has been eaten by Americans and Canadians for more than a decade without harming anybody: even the EU, while applying many restrictions, accepts that it is safer than conventional food.

Fifteen years of tests in 400 European laboratories led EU research commissioner Philippe Busquin to say in 2001 that they had not found “any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding”.

“Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods,” Busquin said.

Even SA, with bumper harvests of GM crops, is threatened by irrational fears, with activists calling for restrictive laws, citing the “precautionary principle”....

At first sight, the precautionary principle looks reasonable. As children, we were warned that you should “look before you leap” or told that “if in doubt, don’t”.

Following that advice will at times have avoided danger, loss and even injury. On the other hand, following precautionary advice to avoid all risk would keep away a lot of fine opportunities, and carrying out a risk assessment before avoiding an oncoming bus could prove fatal.

The precautionary principle requires action to avoid a risk even when there is no evidence of any risk: it demands that new inventions should not be used unless and until they have been shown to be absolutely safe, reversing the usual burden of proof: they are assumed to be harmful until proven safe to an impossible standard.

When the Zambian government turned away famine-relief GM maize in 2005 because of a theoretical health risk, it created a real risk and turned a disaster into a tragedy.

But that same type of GM maize had been consumed by Americans and Canadians for more than a decade.
Applied to agriculture and food biotechnology, the precautionary principle ignores the real threats of hunger, starvation and malnutrition that can be reduced by new products.

Applied to penicillin and aspirin or peanuts and potatoes, with rare fatal allergies, it would have demanded an outright ban.

Yet GM foods do not even have those rare side effects.

It is worth repeating that no one has yet detected any allergy, harm or risk to humans, animals or the environment from commercialised GM crops.

Farmers use GM seeds because they are more efficient, giving higher yields and lower pesticide costs.

Consumers eat GM foods because they are just as good as any other crop, and cheaper too.

Hundreds of millions of people, rich and poor, get income or food from them.

The “Frankenfood” myths about terminator genes, contamination and the destruction of species reflect only ignorance, pseudoscience or plain propaganda.

If we applied the precautionary principle to itself, we would not apply the precautionary principle because of the harm it could cause.

In a continent that desperately needs growth, food, jobs and exports, innovation is exactly what we need.

The US, Canada and Argentina had the muscle to bring their GM-export case to the World Trade Organisation and to win against the EU last year, but African countries are still vulnerable to EU restrictions on GM products and consumer fears of (unspecified) contamination.

Bizarrely, those barriers are supported by western activists in the aid industry, who are all opposed to free trade and GM products, ignoring the fact that these are just the tools that we need to boost exports and fight famine.
For European consumers, GM is a whimsical lifestyle issue. But for the poor of the world, this really is a question of life and death.

Nolutshungu is a director of the Free Market Foundation. This article is based on his evidence before the parliamentary portfolio committee hearing on the Genetically Modified Organisms Bill.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:19 AM | Permalink

GMO Africa Blog
James Wachai
February 19, 2007

In an article appearing in AsianNews.it, the archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, is reported to have sent a letter to Philippines president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, urging her to stop the sale of genetically modified (GM) rice “because it poses health risks to consumers.”

According to the cardinal, “Independent and environmentally-concerned local and international scientists already warned that genetically-modified crops and food products could be very harmful to the environment and to human beings.”

Some people might ask why Cardinal Rosales’stance on GM foods matters to Africa. I am not a Catholic myself, but I gather that Catholic Cardinals don’t issue public pronouncements, especially on an issue as sensitive as GM foods, from the blues. Such must be endorsed by the Vatican.

So when Cardinal Rosales wholesomely condemns GM foods, the question that springs up in my mind is, "Is he expressing his personal views or those of the Vatican? If he’s reinforcing the Vatican’s view on GM foods, then I must be worried, because millions of Africans – most of whom can’t feed themselves - subscribe to the Catholic faith. But I doubt Cardinal Rosales’ views on GM foods mirrors those of the Vatican.

In appreciation of the potential of agricultural biotechnology to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in poor countries, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace in August 2003, produced a document supporting GM foods.

“The problem of hunger involves the conscience of every man, and in particular, those of the Christians," said Cardinal Renato Martino, then the head of the council.

"The Catholic Church follows with special interest and solicitude every development in science to help the solution of a plight that afflicts such a large part of humanity," added Martino in remarks broadcast by Vatican Radio. These were very wise words from a church that works with the poor of the poor.

Agricultural biotechnology is a practical solution to food insecurity, especially in poor countries and it’s encouraging that the Vatican appreciates this fact. For Cardinal Rosales to attempt to contradict his own church is to miss the mark.

It’s instructive to mention that there’s no grain of truth in what the Cardinal says about GM foods. No scientist, contrary to his assertion, has established that GM foods pose health risks to consumers and the environment. It would have been helpful for him to quote a study that states so.

Cardinal Rosales needs to remember that such respected bodies as the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Academies of Science, haven’t found any negative health effects of consuming GM foods.

Religious leaders are the ears and the eyes of the common man/woman. The world expects them to be the custodians of truth, morality and integrity. Making generalized and unfounded allegations about GM foods, as Cardinal Rosales recently did, negates these values.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:09 AM | Permalink

The Philippine STAR
February 18, 2007

Excerpt...

After just 10 years of commercialization, biotech crops have made significant, positive impacts on the global environment, according to a new study by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, two UK-based economists.

The study quantifies the cumulative economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops grown during the past decade (1996-2005).

Brookes and Barfoot said biotech crops have contributed to significant environmental benefits from the reduction in overall usage of pesticides. They also noted a significant reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from biotech crop production.

They also reported that farmers who planted biotech crops realized significant economic gains compared to farmers who planted non-biotech crops.

A key finding of the study revealed that farmers used almost half a billion pounds (224 m kg.) less pesticides with genetically modified (GM) crops since 1996, a reduction of seven percent. This represents about 40 percent of the annual volume of pesticides used in the European Union.

The authors found that the global "environmental impact" of pesticide use has been reduced by over 15 percent due to the planting of biotech crops.

At the same time, biotech crops made a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices by nine billion kg of carbon dioxide. "This is the equivalent of removing almost four million cars from the road for one year," the authors pointed out.

The study also showed that in 2005, GM crops have resulted in reduced pesticide use and reduced plowing. "This has reduced fuel usage with biotech crops and resulted in a reduction of almost one billion kilograms of carbon dioxide emission," the authors pointed out.

GM crops have also facilitated the use of reduced tillage or no tillage farming systems, which results in more plant residue being stored, or sequestered, in the soil. This carbon sequestration saved the equivalent of nine billion kilograms of carbon dioxide emission 2005, the study said.

Economically...farmers earned higher incomes in every country where biotech crops are grown. In 2005, farmers who planted biotech crops earned over five billion in incremental income compared with growers who planted non biotech crops.

The study also noted that since 1996, global farm income from biotech crops increased by a cumulative total of $27 billion from a combination of higher productivity and reduced costs.

It noted that farmers in developing countries captured the majority of the extra farm income from biotech crops, mostly from insect resistant cotton and herbicide tolerant soybean.

The study was published in AgBioForum, a peer reviewed journal on economics and biotechnology.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:50 AM | Permalink

Farmers Weekly
February 16, 2007

Excerpt...

Fears that growing genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) oilseed rape and sugar beet will create uncontrollable super-weeds are unfounded, recent research suggests.

Indeed, herbicide-tolerant beet could offer a fresh start in the weed beet battle.

However, some management practices would need to change, the study by Rothamsted Research and ADAS concludes.
"GMHT beet would give us a superb opportunity to get rid of the weed beet problem and start again," says one of the authors, Broom's Barn's Mike May.

Conventional weed beet plants would be killed by the spray used in the HT crop...removing the reservoir that plagues many farms at a stroke.

"With a bit of effort we could stop the problem building again," says Mr May. Modern varieties are much less susceptible to bolting, though some control will still be needed.

"With herbicide tolerant beet it is vital to remove any bolters from the crop before they flower and release pollen, otherwise gene flow to weed beet will occur, so creating herbicide tolerant weed beet," he explains.

Tolerant

Wiping with glyphosate would no longer be an option if the GM crop was tolerant to that herbicide.

"Cutting and hoeing would still be appropriate, but would have to be done earlier and more often than normal."

With oilseed rape, provided the anticipated isolation distances between crops were enforced, the transfer of herbicide tolerance to adjacent crops would be low, though it would be sensible to keep monitoring the picture, the report suggests.

The main problem with GMHT crops appears to be determining how long to leave between sowing a non-herbicide tolerant crop after growing a GMHT one.

Oilseed rape volunteers from shed seed could exist for up to 10 years. That could have implications for growers wishing to follow with a non-GM crop in that period and stay within the 0.9% admixture threshold.

Harvesting at the right time to minimise seed losses and not cultivating for at least 20 days after cutting should help minimise subsequent problems, advises Rothamsted's Peter Lutman.

Tackling

Some set-aside practices might be affected - for example glyphosate-tolerant volunteers would need tackling with another active, say metsulfuron, explains Dr Lutman.

The main impact would be on subsequent cropping with linseed, sugar beet and beans where some types of tolerance would reduce the herbicide armoury available in those crops.

Commenting on the findings, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment* notes that any changes in herbicide practice would remain within the bounds of good agricultural practice.

However because controlling GMHT volunteers would be easier in winter wheat than in spring crops, farmers might prefer to grow those instead.

That would mean losing over-wintered stubbles which has been linked to the decline in plant, insect and bird populations over the past few decades, says ACRE.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:37 AM | Permalink

Agbioworld
Editorial, Estado De São Paulo (Brazil)
February 6, 2007

Excerpt...

In case the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) does not approve the corn and cotton varieties, which proceedings are stopped, farmers may refrain from profiting up to US$ 9 billion in the next ten years. This alert was made today, on the first day of the 'Show Rural' Coopavel, by the Council for Biotechnology Information (CIB), in a reported developed by Céleres Consultoria.

In the analysis of Anderson Galvão, director of Céleres, corn producers may fail to gain US$ 6.9 billion in the next decade, in case the insect and herbicide resistant varieties are not released by the government for commercial planting. In the case of cotton, the income waiver might reach US$ 2.1 billion. "These figures are a lot more representative than those of soybeans, as the area planted with corn is virtually half of the soybean area. Whereas, for cotton, the area cultivated is of little more than 1 million hectares, which makes transforms these US$ 2.1 billion into very high saving if taking into account the hectares planted", he explains.

For both crops, profits from the adoption of biotechnology, according to the study, would derive from the higher yield and the reduced expenses with herbicides and insecticides. "...the benefits are concentrated in the hands of farmers and of the companies that own the technology, but it has already been observed that they have already been shared among the whole chain and they will certainly reach final consumers", states Galvão.

The preliminary data of the report presented today already indicate that a kilo of chicken bred with transgenic soybeans feed could be sold to consumers for a cost 3.3% lower than the chicken raised with conventional feed. In the case of milk, savings represent 3.4% and for pork savings may reach 4%. "From the moment the companies perceive the necessary political security, new technologies will be introduced in the Country and final consumers.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:18 AM | Permalink

Agbioworld
By Tawanda Zidenga
February 8, 2007
Excerpt…

I derive considerable fascination from following the debate on genetically modified foods. In a peculiar sort of way, this debate reflects some unsettling things about our society.

The marketing of the idea that GMOs carry within them an inherent evil has been impressively marketed. Almost all of my friends who are not in the sciences have misgivings of one form or another on this "unnatural" process. In America, GMOs are blamed for making people fat, and a recent article posted on this forum spoke of the low "intelligence" of GM foods and how badly these foods "confuse our bodies."

Marketed alongside this idea is the idea that anything that is natural (by whatever definition of the advertiser) is healthy and good for the environment. The latter has been so well marketed that it has found its way in the creation of "politically correct" policies. Not surprisingly, some donor agencies have followed suit, streamlining their activities to remain outside public controversy.

One such example is the support of marker assisted selection (MAS) in Africa and not transgenic crop improvement. As far as I can see, the difference between MAS and transgenics, in as far as funding is concerned, is one of political correctness. Political correctness and the truth are…not one and the same thing. So we find that even though there are many projects that are classified under "sustainable development", only a few are really sustainable.

So, how does this marketing work, and why is it working? You cannot market a slim-fast formula unless you make people feel fat. In fact, you make people feel fat, then you make them scared of the consequences of being fat, real or imagined. Then while at it, you hint at the benefits of getting slim using your method.

In his book State of Fear, Michael Crichton brought out the issue of how modern societies are profiteering on fear. In other words, if I make you terrified of "apples with fish genes spliced into them", I will give you the alternative of organic produce. I will tell you, for what it's worth, that I have grown food close to sacred mother nature. Your fear makes its way to my bank account. The hypnosis within the word "natural" is unimaginable. Man's control of nature is always pictured as an evil. But no one points out that a certain level of controlling nature is necessary for our continued survival and comfort. We take it for granted, but now we can keep warm in a bad winter and stay cool in a scotching summer. We have methods of efficiently producing food that allow the rest of us to stay in cities or stand outside other people's labs raising placards, while a small percentage of people are farming. We can now fight disease better than decades ago, and we are improving every day. But of course, if I am doing my marketing, I will tell you what sells my product.

Some people market goods, some people market ideas; others market belief systems. We have come to a crossroad in the modern society where we are no longer sure whether some things are just beliefs or substantiated facts - on DDT, GMOs, organic food etc. But then again, good marketing sometimes comes when you make this difference as vague as possible.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:42 PM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
February 8, 2007

Excerpt…

It is possible to improve the antioxidant action of tomatoes by a directed change in the production of flavonoids by means of genetic modification. This has been shown in doctoral research by Elio Schijlen on the basis of which he hopes to take his degree on Thursday 8 February at the University of Amsterdam. Schijlen demonstrated that this approach enables tomatoes to produce larger amounts of specific flavonoids and to let tomatoes produce flavonoids they cannot produce by nature. The results show that genetic modification is a possible approach to further increase the health promoting value of vegetables and fruit.

Flavonoids are frequently occurring and important metabolites in plants. About 6000 different flavonoids are known to be involved in various natural processes. The colour of flowers and ripe fruits, e.g., are often caused by flavonoids. But flavonoids also play an important role in other plant processes such as pollen production, disease resistance, and protection against UV radiation.

Because flavonoids are so frequently occurring in plants, they are a permanent component of our food. Part of the health promoting effects of vegetables and fruit is attributed to flavonoids. It may therefore be attractive to increase the amount of flavonoids and/or change their composition.

This was why Schijlen, working at Plant Research International of Wageningen UR, studied the possibilities of steering the production of flavonoids by a directed change of the biosynthesis route via genetic modification. He followed various approaches to achieve this. One approach was to investigate the possibility of increasing the amount of flavonoids in tomato by means of so-called transcription factors, proteins involved in regulating gene activity.

Schijlen also investigated the possibility to produce new flavonoids in tomatoes which might increase the health promoting properties of tomatoes. For this purpose he used genes form other crops such as grape and alfalfa, genes that are involved in certain steps in the biosynthesis of flavonoids in these crops.

Both approaches were found to be successful. Through genetic modification Schijlen succeeded in developing tomatoes not only with more flavonoids but also with new flavonoids.

Via biochemical analysis Schijlen demonstrated an increased antioxidant action of tomatoes with flavones and more flavonoles, two specific groups of flavonoids. In cooperation with scientists of BASF Plant Science and TNO, the potential health promoting effects of these tomatoes were tested in feeding studies with mice. Blood analyses showed that that the tomatoes with increased flavonoids had a stronger positive effect on blood properties that are characteristic of a reduced risk of cardiovascular disorders.

With his results, Schijlen has shown that genetic modification can further increase the health promoting effects of vegetables and fruit.

Posted by AC Baumer at 9:17 AM | Permalink

Agbioworld
By Novgorodskiye Vedomosti (Velikiy Novgorod)
January 26, 2007

Excerpt…

Russian chief medical officer Gennadiy Onishchenko made an unannounced visit to Velikiy Novgorod to inspect the construction of a laboratory at the Hygiene and Epidemiology Centre, Novgorodskiye Vedomosti said on 26 January. The laboratory worth R200m…will have capacities to diagnose infectious diseases, conduct air and water tests and identify genetically modified components in foodstuffs.

Onishchenko said genetically modified [GM] crops are a blessing for the mankind because they save billions of people from starvation. "In today's conditions Russia cannot provide itself with foods, even with potato, by using conventional agricultural methods only. We have to permit the consumption of and buy genetically modified soybeans and other crops," the newspaper quoted him as saying.

Posted by AC Baumer at 8:55 AM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
By Wagdy Sawahel
February 12, 2007

Excerpt...

Scientists have genetically engineered tobacco plants to produce a protein for a vaccine against amoebiasis — a disease predominantly affecting Central and South America, Africa and Asia.

The World Health Organization estimates that amoebiasis...causes 50 million cases and 100,000 deaths a year. There is currently no approved vaccine against the disease.

According to the researchers, the method used achieves high production levels at a low cost, and also prevents modified genes from crossing to other plants in the environment.

Henry Daniell and colleagues at the University of Central Florida in the United States added the gene for a molecule that prompts an immune response in humans — the antigen — to the chloroplasts of the tobacco plant. Chloroplasts are the parts of the cells which contain the pigment that makes leaves green.

With this method, the gene is not carried in the plant's pollen and so cannot migrate to other plants.

The tobacco-derived antigen successfully prompted an immune response in animal tests that was 4–20 times higher than that from other engineered antigens.

The researchers calculate that an average yield of 24 milligrams of vaccine antigen per plant could produce 29 million doses of vaccine per acre of the transgenic crop.

The researchers say future development should be directed toward using carrot or lettuce plants, paving the way for a cheap oral vaccine. Tobacco was used initially, as it is easy to engineer in the lab.

Mohammed Ahmed Hamoud, professor of plant molecular biotechnology at Tanta University, Egypt, welcomed the news. He said a plant-derived vaccine would be environmentally safe, cheap and could be produced in larger amounts than were usually possible with conventional vaccine production methods.

"However, it remains to be seen whether this technology will be available for developing countries to produce their own drugs and vaccines locally," Hamoud told SciDev.Net. He hoped human clinical trials would begin soon.

The study was published online in Plant Biotechnology Journal on 25 January.

Copyright SciDev.Net

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:00 PM | Permalink

GMO Pundit
Rick Roush
Faculty of Land and Food Resources
The University of Melbourne 3010
rroush@unimelb.edu.au
February 2007

Excerpt...

A continuing review of the news and scientific literature, as well as on-ground first hand investigations in the US and Canada, show that (1) there are significant advantages to existing GM crops, including herbicide resistance, and these crops are now being widely grown around the world; (2) the European Union has been extensively using GM crops for several years and is now increasingly growing them; (3) coexistence of GM and non-GM crops is not a major issue in the US or Canada; and (4) the current state moratoria are not only costing Australian growers now, but are inhibiting the development of crop varieties with even more useful traits, such as drought and salt tolerance. Unfortunately, the Australian news media are not adequately covering the facts or success stories about GM, but in a misguided and misinformed attempt at providing "balance", give credibility to views that are either unsupported by the facts or in an extreme minority.

Here are some of the facts, now familiar to almost anyone who follows GM crops, that we need to bring to the attention of the Australian public.

Since their introduction in the mid-1990s (first in China with virus-resistant tobacco), genetically modified (or “GM”) biotech crops have continued to increase in use around the world. They are now grown by some 7 million farmers across more than 90 million hectares in at least 22 countries (see www.isaaa.org)....Various economic studies of GM crops, such as those of Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo of the US Department of Agriculture and independent European government studies, have continued to show that GM crops save input costs (pesticides and fuel), reduce tillage, provide more free time to growers, increase yields and/or protect the environment (through less and safer pesticide use, reduced erosion, etc.).

Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, two UK based economists, have quantified the cumulative economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops grown from 1996-2005 (the study can be found at: http://www.agbioforum.org). Since 1996, Brookes and Barfoot report that the global use of pesticides in GM crops was reduced by 224 million kilograms. Herbicide tolerant canola, mostly in Canada, saw a reduction of 6.3 million kg, some 11% of use. In 2005, the CO2 savings from reduced fuel use in GM crops was close to 1 billion kg and the increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil due to a reduction in tillage was more than 8 billion kg. This combined reduction of over 9 billion kg of CO2 emissions in 2005 is the equivalent of removing almost 4 million cars from the road for one year. Further, farmers earned higher incomes in every country where GM crops are grown. Farm income increased by $US 5 billion from biotech crops in 2005 and the cumulative increase in farm income from biotech crops since 1996 was $27 billon. Growers of herbicide tolerant canola had farm income benefits of $195 million in 2005 alone, with $713 million in total since 1996!

For several years now, more than half of the millions of tonnes of soy imported to Europe has been GM. This has been used for stock feed, with no labelling required of the meat and poultry products sold to consumers. As with canola, there never has been any significant premium for GM free soy, at least not enough to offset the production advantages, so GM soy production has continued to expand. Similarly, millions of tonnes of GM corn, canola, and soy have been imported to Japan and used for human consumption, fed to dairy cows and so forth. News reports indicate that the EU will soon finally approve GM canola for import, but it is already importing canola oil from Canadian GM crops to fuel its increasing demand for biodiesel. Further, not only is Europe importing and using GM crops, they are growing their own! In 2006, Spain, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia planted GM crops, now on a total of at least 170,000 ha, with 5-fold increases in several of these countries in 2006 (see www.isaaa.org).

The potential for problems with co-existence of GM and non-GM crops has been claimed as a reason not to grow GM crops, but in the US and Canada, where farmers have been growing GM crops and non-GM crops for more than a decade, co-existence simply is not a real issue. One Californian producer, for example, Terranova Farms, is growing organic, conventional and GM cotton in the same enterprise without any problems, and with the full awareness of its customer, Patagonia clothing. The state of Iowa, which has one of the highest levels of GM corn uptakes in the US, also has one of the highest proportions of organic production of any US state. I have searched long and hard for any evidence of problems with coexistence anywhere, and found no evidence of any problems of neighbours suing each other, lost certifications for organic growers, or anything of the kind.

To be thorough, there was a major problem with the use of Starlink corn in the US, but this was a foolish registration and growers have been compensated with large pay-outs from the company that registered the corn, not between growers. I have yet to find any documented cases of financial losses to organic growers, and in any case, organic farming is certified on the basis of product, not process (as in Australia). Growers cannot lose their certification over GM (or pesticide residues) so long as they follow the required farming practices.

In sum, all of the reasons cited for the initiation of the state moratoria on GM crops in Australia are now obsolete. In those cases where there ever were any issues to be resolved, developments in other countries have passed them by. However, the moratoria are continuing to delay innovations for Australian growers for the very kinds of traits that are desperately needed, such as drought tolerance and salinity.

Researchers around the world, many of them in the public-sector (including countries like Japan, South Africa, China, and India), rather than large companies, are finding increasing numbers of single-gene characteristics that provide levels of tolerance to drought and salinity. Such single-gene traits are comparatively easy to transfer into breeding programs, so there is potential for rapid development of drought and salt-tolerant grain varieties. Drought tolerant wheat varieties have been tested already in greenhouses in Mexico at the international research centre, CIMMYT. At the University of California, Davis, Dr Eduardo Blumwald produced salt tolerant canola 5 years ago. He’s started to develop a salt-tolerant lucerne that could grow into somewhat saline groundwater. This opens the way for an economic return while slowing or reversing salinity due to rising water tables, an attribute that would appear to have huge potential for salinity control in Australia.

ABARE has concluded that the state moratoria could cost Australia some $3 billion by 2015. GM crops Australia can’t afford to turn its back on the potential of this and similar work for Australian growers. Who’s going to invest in this research in the face of an uncertain commercial future driven by the state moratoria? The moratoria must be lifted so that Australia’s farmers can share the “freedom to farm” enjoyed by our competitors.

However, the public and some political leaders in Australia are being persuaded that there are unknown risks to human health, the environment, and the economy from GM crops, in some cases by 1-2 people with scientific credentials (e.g., Judy Carmen and friends), but mostly by people without such credentials (Bob Phelps, Julie Newman, even Kim Chance). It is important to remember that there are always people with extreme views on any subject. We even have people in Australia and elsewhere around the world who claim the holocaust never happened, or (recently) that AIDS is not caused by HIV. We need to help the press understand that just because there are a few people who will make extreme claims, there are not two legitimate "sides" to some statements. Anti-GM activists surely have the right to their own opinions, but not to create their own facts.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:57 PM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
February 8, 2007

Excerpt...

Feb 8, 2007 — BRASILIA (Reuters) - Brazil plans to invest 10 billion reais ($4.76 billion) over the next 10 years into biotechnology research involving renewable energy, agriculture and rain forest pharmaceuticals, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Thursday.

"Brazil has 20 percent of the world's biodiversity and immense forests. The goal is to activate that potential," Lula said at an event to sign a decree outlining the policy.

More than half Brazil's territory is covered by the Amazon rain forest. Governments have long talked of tapping its potential as a source of pharmaceutical discoveries, but bureaucracy and lack of investment have slowed progress.

The funding should come from public and private investment. The government will contribute 60 percent...Development Minister Luiz Furlan said.

Furlan did not explain if the private funding was already guaranteed.

Lula said he would promote research into rain forest plants, while continuing to fight deforestation. He cited Brazil's ethanol program as proof the country can profit from biotechnology. The aim was for Brazil to become a global leader in biotechnology in the next 10 to 15 years, he said.

Brazil is a powerhouse agriculture exporter that became a global biofuels leader by investing in sugar cane ethanol over the last three decades.

The government also recently cleared the way for genetically modified crops, but no new varieties of plants have yet made it through a cumbersome approval process.

(c) 2007 Reuters.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:06 PM | Permalink

Right-Thinking from the West Coast
February 5, 2007

Excerpt...

Hot on the heels of their paranoid opposition to anything with the word “nuclear” in it, no matter how beneficial it may be, here’s the latest technological innovation which environmentalist lunatics will oppose.

If 4 million cars were taken off the road in a single year, stopping 9 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide being discharged, most environmentalists would whoop with joy. But what if the same saving came from planting genetically modified crops?

This is the claim of an annual audit of GM crops by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), which is funded largely by the GM industry.

The audit...bases its estimate on GM planting in 2005 in the US, Canada and Argentina. Graham Brookes of PG Economics in Dorchester, UK, who supplied the data, says 85 per cent of the savings come from the fact that farmers growing weedkiller-resistant GM crops don’t have to plough their fields to get rid of weeds, so organic matter in the soil is not exposed to the atmosphere. This, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, prevents the release of 300 kilograms of CO2 per year per hectare. The rest of the figure is from fuel savings (Agbioforum, vol 9, p 139).

This is a perfect illustration of why I am so hostile to the environmental movement. It’s a left-wing political ideology tarted up in the bunting of protecting the environment. The socialists and communists tried for 100 years to hamstring capitalism and markets and enterprise but they failed miserably. Now they’re trying a new tactic, using the overhyped fear of environmental catastrophe to force governments to implement the very political changes they failed for so long to achieve.

We have corporations sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into biotechnology, something which has a demonstrable benefit to mankind. Why? Because there will be a market for them, and the profit potential is enormous, since everyone has to eat. But these activists can’t have that, because (a) it doesn’t require socialism to implement, and (b) corporations will make money off it. It doesn’t matter how beneficial a new technology might be, or how many lives might be saved, anything of that nature. All that matters are the political goals.

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:35 PM | Permalink

Financial Express
Interview with Clive James
February 5, 2007

Industry calls him voice of the global biotech crop industry. Some even refer to him as the bookkeeper and for good reasons. Each year, Clive James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), undertakes the daunting task of preparing an exhaustive report on the adoption of biotech crops around the world. “More important than this is to share knowledge with the society on the benefits of adopting this modern agricultural technology,” says the founder of ISAAA that facilitates the acquisition and transfer of agricultural biotech applications from the developed countries, for the benefit of resource-poor farmers in the developing world. Earlier, he was deputy director general at the Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico, where he worked with Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. “The big opportunity is round the corner and India needs to simplify its regulatory mechanism in order to reap the benefits of modern biotech,” he informs Sudhir Chowdhary.

Excerpts...

Why is a significant portion of the farming community paranoid about the adoption of GM crops?

Almost 53% of the world’s population now lives in countries where biotech crops are being approved, used, and are generating profits. In fact, majority of the global population is enjoying the benefits of biotech crops. This is a very conservative estimate because it is based on the 22 countries that actually plant biotech crops today. If we take into account the number of countries that have approved import of biotech crops for food and feed, the number of countries increases from 22 to 51.

Another indicator is that if we look at the adoption from 1996 when we had 1.7 million hectares to 2006 when we have 102 million hectares, biotech crops have registered a 60-fold increase in a period of 11 years. There is no crop technology of any sort that has got this level of adoption rate.

Why are they so averse and frightened of cultivating these crops?

When this technology was first introduced, it was the scientists and not the consumers and environmentalists who took a very responsible action and said that this is a new technology. With any new technology, it is important that people are cautious in case there is an issue they have not foreseen. It was a conference in the US that first put across the idea that biotech crops need to be closely monitored in the initial stages of cultivation.

The scientists emphasised that there is need for stringent regulation to make sure that biotech crops are safe and healthy for human mankind. If one were to look at 11 years of regulation, I would say that stewardship has been exemplary. The knowledge base built during these years allows us to do two things: simplify the regulatory process and make it more workable, at least in the developing countries. The challenge for India is to simplify the regulation.

But, there have been instances in India of people burning the fields with GM crops.

I am aware of this. In society, you always tend to get people that seem to be on the fanatic side. They are violent in their thoughts. I believe that in India like many other countries, one would find this element. They are opposed to almost everything—globalisation, technology and what not.

What needs to be done to ensure that biotech crops gain global acceptance ?

The lesson that we have learnt during the past decade is that it is imperative to share knowledge with the global society. Most things we are associated with in our daily lives are capable of damaging us. So, it is a matter of managing them because life with no risks does not exist. There is no situation that is zero-risk. And, those opposed to biotech crops are asking us whether we can guarantee that biotech crops are 100% risk-free. It is simply not possible. I believe that it is important to share the knowledge so that issues that could be harmful are managed effectively.

Where does India fit into the global scenario of GM crops?

We are at an exciting time in biotech’s adoption. India is emerging as a key leader in Asia. Not just that. Looking at the plant diversity existing here, India could be a test-bed for other countries to adopt GM crops on a large scale. The country tallied the most substantial percentage increase at 192% or 2.5 million hectares to total 3.8 million hectares, jumping two spots in the world ranking to become the fifth largest producer of biotech crops in the world, surpassing China for the first time. While the Americas led the first decade of biotech crop adoption, the second decade is likely to feature significant growth in Asia and its developing countries of India, China and the Philippines, as well as new biotech countries like Pakistan and Vietnam.

Can we expect to see greater acceptance for genetically modified fruits?

We have already seen some fruits being developed with GM technology. The one that has been adopted commercially is Papaya. Fruits utilise immense insecticides for their cultivation. The use of biotechnology minimises the use of insecticides. Biotechnology for fruits has not been utilized to full potential. These are high value crops and biotechnology has a promising future in their cultivation.

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:02 PM | Permalink

Sinclair's Musings Blog
Matthew Sinclair
February 6, 2007

Excerpt...

The Conservatives are now apparently taking a stand against genetically modified crops [GM Crops]. This time it is about their "contamination" of regular crops eroding consumer choice but this is vaguely ridiculous. If they can contaminate that implies they are still genetically similar enough to interbreed which suggests to me that any genetic modification has been more akin to other human interventions in the natural world. These concerns are never raised about selective breeding which is a less efficient version of the same process.

Every time I've seen genetically modified crops [GM Crops] discussed it usually transpires that the only reason the green movement is really wound up about 'frankenstein crops' is that it thinks increases in yields are so utterly pointless they cannot justify any risk no matter how negligible. They attack these companies for wanting to make profit, as if that's a problem, and then opine that we have enough food. This is what really gets to me:

The same green movement which now unfortunately includes the Conservative party can combine earnest worrying about Stern's report which identifies the biggest cost of global warming as lost agricultural production can regard agricultural productivity as vaguely disreputable. To regard technologies which might provide increased yields as a grubby drive for profits at the same time as forecasting disaster thanks to declines in global agricultural production is rather disingenous. That some of those who worry most about global warming and the harm it will do to humanity are willing to join the Slow Food movement whose entire purpose seems to be to celebrate low yield agriculture makes me want to scream.

All that the green lobby can offer in response to climate change are attempts by Britain and Europe to tackle global warming through emissions curbs without the involvement of other countries such as the US, India or particularly China and a blind hope that these countries will…see the light. By contrast, the skeptics focussed on adaptation can offer DDT spraying to fight infectious disease, economic reform to create nations better able to protect themselves against flooding and other natural disasters and another vast increase in agricultural productivity. Minor concerns with these and other solutions, nuclear power is the same phenomenon on a bigger scale, are blown wildly out of proportion until the only plausible responses involve grand interventions in the econmy.

I don't like to attack the motives of those whose ideas I oppose. As seen in the furore over the AEI paying people to write articles, as if the normal practice in journalism and politics is for authors to write from the dole, these accusations are often rather cheap. With this caveat, it looks to me that any response to global warming which doesn't involve in some way assaulting the capitalist economy just isn't good enough for the green movement. They are rather too attached to the idea that the only possible response to climate change is action to curb emissions because that provides not just an excuse for government intervention but also a raison d'etre for institutions of global governance which boosts the tranzi cause. If my suspicions are correct, and I think they might be, how has the Conservative party allowed itself to become a part of such a con designed to justify the great ideological threats to the liberal economic and democratic order?

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:40 PM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
By Ken Alltucker
February 6, 2007

Excerpt...

Farmers say genetically modified seeds help guard state's crop by keeping bugs at bay.

Americans are distrustful when scientists begin tinkering with the food supply by altering crops or cloning animals.

But the practice of planting biotech crops is widespread in Arizona and elsewhere.

Arizona's main foray into biotech agriculture is the use of a modified cottonseed designed to wipe out a pest that some say once endangered the state's cotton crop. The genetically modified seed...Bt Cotton, has improved cotton yields and nearly eradicated the pink bollworm.

"In my opinion, it probably saved the cotton industry in the state of Arizona," said Bruce Heiden, who owns a farm in Buckeye. "In our farming operation, genetically engineered plants and seeds have removed tons and tons of pesticides. I have been fighting all my life to make pesticides available. Now we're going to learn to live without them, and that's safer for the environment."

That's the argument farmers across the United States use as they switch to biotech crops. Those involved in agriculture tout the use of such crops as a way to use fewer pesticides and improve yields. Farmers increasingly are turning to biotech crops to grow cotton, corn, soybeans, alfalfa or other crops.

U.S. farmers have led a worldwide charge for the use of such crops. U.S. farms account for 135 million of 252 million acres of biotech crops planted worldwide in 2006, according to the International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

Debate over altered crops

Even as more farmers plant such crops, a recent survey shows that Americans aren't aware that corn, alfalfa, processed foods or other foods found on supermarket shelves have been altered at the genetic level.

"Most people don't understand the extremes that commodity crops are genetically engineered," said Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Fernandez said public opinion over the use of such farming methods is up for grabs.

"There's a relatively small number of people who are strongly opposed and a small amount in favor," of biotech crops, Fernandez said. "Most people fall somewhere in the middle. Their opinions are not firmly held."

That's not the case with using cloned animals for food. Almost two-thirds of people (64 percent) say they are uncomfortable with the idea of cloning animals, according to a survey last year by the Pew Initiative.

Nevertheless, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to declare this year that meat from cloned cows, pigs and other animals is safe to eat.

The cloned animals likely will not be used as food because of the expense. Rather, farmers likely will clone their most desirable animals and use the meat and dairy products from the cloned animals' offspring.

Vicki Chandler, director of the Bio5 Institute in Tucson, said each biotech product must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

"You need to take a look at the product and evaluate the safety from there," said Chandler, who cited cotton as productive use of biotechnology for plants.

Battling persistent pests

Heiden said he was skeptical about using biotech seeds on his family farm in Buckeye.

At the height of the pink bollworm invasion, Heiden said he would spray insecticides as often as 15 times a year. He worried that a modified seed would not curb the need for spraying pesticides and would end up costing a bundle.

"We're always skeptical of something until we have a chance to try it," said Heiden, a second-generation farmer who has been working the fields of his family farm, H-Four Farm, since the 1950s.

He has become a convert. Crop sprayings have dwindled to just a handful each year to ward off other pests and weeds.

The National Cotton Council of America estimates that pink bollworm cost cotton producers as much as $32 million in lost yields and related costs. Those lost crops have been all but eliminated under the pink bollworm eradication plan, a federally funded program targeting the bollworm in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas and parts of northern Mexico.

Bt Cotton is genetically modified to grow a natural insecticide known as Bt toxin. The modified seeds, engineered by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., are made with a bacterium whose gene is placed into cottonseeds that resist bollworms.

Environmental groups abroad, particularly in the European Union, have assailed the use of Bt Cotton over fears that the modified cotton could develop resistance to antibiotics and prove harmful to humans. Those fears have not materialized, according to Bruce Tabashnik, head of the University of Arizona's entomology department.

"It is probably the most closely watched (eradication) program in the world. The resistance has not increased," Tabashnik said.

Farmers throughout the state now routinely plant the seed as part of the effort to get rid of the pest.

Wiley Murphy, who farms 500 acres in southern Arizona, said his entire farm is planted with biotech seeds. Just a few years ago, he would spray five or six times a year to fight off pink bollworm. That has been reduced to about once a year.

He said Arizona's use of biotech seeds won't restore cotton as one of the staples of Arizona's economy. The state's production has winnowed over the years as farmers increasingly sell valuable land to developers.

But he said the use of modified seeds allows cotton farmers to maximize production while avoiding the harmful effects of pesticides.

"Environmentalists should be happy with this," Murphy said. "I don't know of a single case where it has been harmful."

Copyright © 2007, azcentral.com

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:12 PM | Permalink

Reuters
By Niu Shuping
February 1, 2007

Asia is set to become the driving force behind biotech crops in the next decade, despite hesitance by China to commercialize GMO rice, a Chinese scientist and an international body said on Monday.

In 2006, the first year of the second decade of biotech crops, India took over China as the world's top grower of genetically modified (GMO) cotton, the pro-biotech International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

"The second decade will likely feature strong growth in Asia led by China, India and new countries like Pakistan and Vietnam," it said in a report. "The first decade (1996-2005) was the decade of the Americans."

ISAAA said India, which planted Bt cotton for the first time in 2002, had tripled acreage for insect-resistant Bt cotton in 2006 to 3.8 million hectares, surpassing 3.5 million hectares in China.

Jikun Huang, a scientist with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, attributed China's fall to a decreased cotton acreage. Beijing has encouraged farmers to grow more grains due to the country's food security concerns in the past few years.

But Huang said favorable weather helped China boost its 2006 cotton output by 17.8 percent to 6.73 million tonnes. More than 60 percent of Chinese grown cotton was Bt cotton.

"The biotechnology has helped farmers reduce cost and raise production on limited land," said Huang, a Chinese scientist known for promoting biotechnology.

Bt cotton increased income of some 6.8 million farmers as it cut pesticide use by 60 percent, while raising yields by 10 percent compared with conventional varieties, said Huang.

GMO RICE, RAPESEED

But Huang said Beijing was still against commercialization of GMO rice, a staple food for many of its 1.3 billion people.

"We still hope GMO rice could also be approved for production in the next two to three years," said Huang, adding Beijing was reluctant to give go-ahead because of social and political reasons. He did not elaborate.

Though Beijing looked close to approving GMO rice in early 2005, it has put the brakes on the move following reports that transgenic rice was traded illegally in China.

As Beijing was eager to develop biofuel to reduce its reliance on imported oil, Huang said rapeseed could be the next farm product approved by Beijing for commercial production after it had approved the production of GMO papaya in 2006.

China also plans to raise its budget for biotechnology after spending about 2 billion yuan a year, which mainly goes to the research of GMO rice, said Huang.

ISAAA said it expected the global biotech area to nearly double to 200 million hectares by 2015 from 102 million hectares in 2006 after a 60-fold increase between 1996 and 2006.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:35 PM | Permalink

Corny City in Cape Town
January 31, 2007

Summary of article that promotes safety of Bt-Corn

For my adviser here at UCT, I wrote a summary of the article "Health and Food Safety: the Benefits of Bt-Corn,” by Drew Kershen. I found the article to be quite interesting, and thought I would share my summary with you.

Drew Kershen, 2006, Food and Drug Law Journal, 61:197-236

Kershen’s discussion starts innocently with the health risks that fumonisin contaminated corn pose to mothers and their unborn children, especially among Mexican Americans living in rural area, but then takes a turn certain to vex anti-GM constituents, as he focuses on how the FDA could reduce health risks by promoting Bt-corn as a safer alternative to conventionally and organically grown corn.

Unlike most of the anti-GM rhetoric, the science behind Kershen’s claims is sound. Heavy corn borer damage opens the ear to fungi that produce some of the most potent carcinogens known, called mycotoxins. For example, corn contaminated with fumonisin B1 produced by the Fusarium fungus has been linked to lethal diseases in animals and humans. In particular, an unusually high rate of birth defects was observed from 1995 to 2000 among Mexican American women living in the Southwest US. Their diet mainly consists of local corn that is often contaminated with high levels fumonisin. A linkage between fumonisin levels and birth defects is supported by the mycotoxin’s cellular activity—it interferes with the uptake of folic acid, which is a necessary metabolite early in pregnancy. Folic acid uptake from women’s diets ensures proper spinal cord development in the embryo. The FDA acted to ensure that women realized the importance of folic acid during pregnancies, by allowing health claims about folic acid to be put on certain foods and requiring that “enriched” foods be fortified with folic acid. If the FDA was quick to act on the folic acid issue, then Kershen figures that there should also be quick action to deal with the fumonisin in corn, which is definitely affecting folate uptake.

The EU and FDA have both established safe levels of fumonisins in corn, corn by products, and animals’ feeds. In 2001, the FDA even concluded that the levels of fumonisin in current foods do not pose any threat to our health. In light of new scientific evidence, and more importantly a safer alternative, Kershen does not think that FDA’s statement is correct anymore. Instead, he believes the FDA should jump into action and inform the public about the health consequences of consuming fumonisin contaminated corn or foods containing by products from such corn. The FDA should also go one step further by promoting the safer alternative Bt-corn, and encouraging farmers and processors to swap conventional and organic corn with the better alternative.

Legally, Kershen points out that the FDA has many avenues available to implement such policies. Although he never discuses the chances of FDA acting on the matter, which are quite slim, the tools the FDA could use promote such health policy are interesting to think about and briefly summarized below. Actions that the FDA could take include: (1) implementing an educational campaign; (2) monitoring fumonisin levels in food or feed, (3) labeling Bt-products with health claims; (4) setting the identity for corn food products; (5) initiating a management program of critical control points for hazard along the processing chain; (6) labeling non-Bt corn products with health warnings.

1. Educational Campaigns

Put on by the FDA and the Public Health Service and specifically targeted populations where corn is a large part of the diet. The objective being to inform women of the linkage between fumonisin in corn and birth defects and encourage women to eat Bt-corn and corn products made from Bt-corn.

2. Monitoring Fumonisin levels in food or feed

Allows the FDA to perform any voluntary recalls if necessary, declare a food as adulterated as necessary, and gather data about the prevalence of excessive fumonisins in corn products, the kinds of food products that have the greater risk of fumonisin contamination, and the population groups most frequently exposed to excessive fumonisins. Unfortunately, monitoring levels of the mycotoxin in foods is an after the fact activity, as corn products and foods containing corn by products have already been released to the public. Additionally, homegrown corn cannot be monitored, so populations like the Mexican American women would still remain at risk.

3. Health Claim Labels

Because of scientific evidence about the reduction of fumonisin levels in Bt-corn, fumonisin interference of folate uptake, and the relationship between folate and birth defects, food manufacturers using Bt-corn may be entitled to use a health claim on food labels. There are three different types of health claim labels: unqualified health claim (all public scientific evidence supports claim); qualified claim (if there is credible evidence to support claim); authoritative claim (if a science organization or governmental organization makes an authoritative statement). Labeling foods falls short of helping those most afflicted by fumonisin contaminated corn, like the Mexican American women, so Kershen suggests that seed companies should label Bt seed bags with a similar health claim that would help educate farmers and consumers in more remote areas.

4. Food Product Identity

If FDA were to decide that exposure to fumonisin levels was too high and needed to be reduced, the agency could use the rarely invoked statutory authority under 21 U.S.C. § 341 to define and set standards for particular corn food products. As previously noted, they used this statute to require enriched foods to be fortified with folate. Kershen mentions that the FDA could define enriched grain products or dry-milled corn food products to require Bt-corn as the basic corn ingredient. Though such a method seems quite drastic, such measures would protect Mexican American women, regardless of where they purchased corn tortillas or corn ingredients.

5. Hazard Management Program

HACCP is a management system approach to food safety that focuses on creating a process that addresses every point of the food chain, from farmer to processor, functioning as a preventive plan for ensuring food safety. HACCP programs have become more popular for dealing with food safety issues. Developing a program for corn processing would ensure that each actor on the chain would be aware of fumonisin hazards and would be therefore, be likely to choose to work with Bt-corn. The FDA could designate Bt-corn as the default agricultural input to chain for properly controlling fumonisin; however, this designation does not bind processors and farmers to use Bt-corn. They are free to use other lines of corn as long as they can reduce fumonisin levels to those observed in Bt-corn. Kershen also notes that an HACCP program would only be beneficial to Mexican American women if it encompassed to whole chain of corn production, targeting farmers at the start point and educating them about the benefits of Bt-corn.

6. Labeling non-Bt-corn Products

The FDA put warning labels on juices about possible pathogens in unpasteurized juice to educate a public that automatically thinks of juices as being healthy and non-harmful for them. The FDA could move to put health labels on non-Bt-corn products because organic foods have a similar wrong perception about their harmfulness.

Kershen does not speculate on the likelihood of the FDA taking action. However, I infer his choice to conclude with a short discussion about product food liability to suggest he expects women affected by fumonisin levels in corn are likely to be left on their own due to FDA inactivity. To hold a company, processor, or farmer accountable, a women and child affected by fumonisin levels in corn can claim manufacturing, design, or warning defects, with manufacturing and design defects likely being easier to pursue against contaminated conventional or organic corn.

Kershen wraps up the piece stating, “The health benefits of Bt-corn have ramifications for policy and law both domestic and international on multiple fronts—maternal and child health, food safety, animal productivity, and international trade,” which is certainly true. But we must not forget that any policy showing slight favoritism to GM crops will have serious social ramifications throughout the world.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:24 PM | Permalink