GMO Food for Thought

GMO Africa Blog
March 27, 2007

Every time I write an article to pillory anti-technology activists for misrepresenting and misreporting modern agricultural biotechnology – I author GMO Africa Blog - I am branded an apologist for multinational biotech companies. Criticism against me usually intensifies when I demand that African farmers be allowed to cultivate genetically modified crops. Some of my critics contend that Africa is awash with food and the only problem is that there isn’t proper infrastructure to distribute it. My question has always been, “Why have Americans embraced modern agricultural biotechnology, yet they have the best roads, rail tracks and airfields?”

My critics are ill-informed and out of touch with reality. Most have never visited Africa. Their knowledge of Africa comes from watching the Discovery Channel or reading National Geographic Magazine. Africa and the West are like heaven and earth. They’re totally different. Africa is wracked in poverty, while the West swims in abundant wealth. American farmers smile all the way to the bank, while African farmers can’t even grow enough to feed their families.

To illustrate the disparities that exist between these two worlds, I invite you to watch these two videos appearing on Conversations About Plant Biotechnology website. One features Ouoba Issiaka, a Malian farmer explaining his experience with genetically modified cotton. The other features Jay Hardwick, a U.S. farmer with about ten years of experience growing genetically modified cotton, corn, and soybeans. The faces of these two men tell it all. The Malian farmer is evidently poor, while his American counterpart looks contented. My question is, “Why not give the Malian farmer leeway to experiment on what his American colleague considers a standard farming practice?

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:41 AM | Permalink

Associated Press via Yahoo News
By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
March 21, 2007

Excerpt…

SAN FRANCISCO - Biotechnology was first applied in medicine, then farming. Today, dozens of lifesaving drugs are on the market, while many crops are genetically engineered to withstand weed killers.

Now, a 2-year-old push to develop alternative fuels is driving biotechnology's growth into the industrial sector.

Thousands of corporate executives and scientists gather this weekend in Orlando, Fla. for an industry trade show specifically aimed at touting biotechnology's so-called third wave, industrial applications. The word on everyone's lips: ethanol.

After decades of unfulfilled promise and billions in government corn subsidies, energy companies may finally be able to produce ethanol easily and inexpensively thanks to breakthroughs in biotechnology.

Most of the 5 billion gallons of ethanol produced annually in the United States is still made by fermenting corn, but the crop is expensive and its use in biofuels cuts into the nation's food supply. So the Canadian biotech company Iogen Corp. has developed a method for deriving ethanol from a variety of plants including wheat, oats and barley. Others are genetically engineering microbes to produce enzymes that will convert the cellulose in crop waste, wood chips and other plants into ethanol.

President Bush helped breathe new life into this once-sleepy biotech sector by touting the need to ramp up production of this "cellulosic ethanol" in his last two State of the Union speeches.

The president wants to reduce the country's oil consumption by 20 percent within 10 years and he sees alternative fuels as the way to get there. Bush visited the North Carolina biotechnology company Novozymes Inc. last month to underscore the industry's vital role in accomplishing that ambitious goal.

Government agencies led by the Department of Energy are sinking millions into biotech projects aimed at making ethanol more efficiently. And startups dedicated to turning plants into fuel have captured the fancy of deep-pocketed venture capitalists like Vinod Khosla. The billionaire co-founder of Sun Microsystems Inc. is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in green technology and will be a featured speaker this year at the World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology & Bioprocessing.

Other heavy hitters attending the conference include University of California scientist Jay Keasling, Discover magazine's Scientist of the Year in 2006 and a leader in the burgeoning "synthetic biology" field, which aims to create living species that will spit out drugs and fuel.

Oil companies are also investing heavily in biotechnology these days, and executives from ConocoPhillips Co., Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil Corp. will also be on hand at Walt Disney World for the conference, which starts Thursday.

By contrast, these annual gatherings have historically been sleepy affairs. Last year's industrial biotech meeting, sponsored by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, drew little interest even though it was held in Hawaii in January. That state's lieutenant governor may have been the biggest draw.

Past conferences have featured discussions on topics like biotech's role in manufacturing enzymes used to help laundry detergent break down dirt and give blue jeans the stone-washed look. But this year's meeting will be focused on the industry's role in making ethanol and other alternative fuels.

The DOE has awarded up to $385 million over four years to six companies to develop ethanol....

Read the full article at Associated Press via Yahoo News.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:47 PM | Permalink

AgBioWorld
Andrew Apel
March 16, 2007

Excerpt…

"Monsanto Corn Allegedly Toxic," reads a headline in the March 15 edition of Red Herring. [1] They were beat to press by Britain's Daily Mail, which proclaimed, "GM corn 'could cause liver and kidney damage'." [2]

Underscoring these shrill headlines was the announcement by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that it would, in the words of FoodNavigator.com, "review the new data presented by French scientists that revealed toxicity concerns in rats fed the MON863 variety of GM maize from Monsanto." [3]

However, there is no "new data." It's old data, which European authorities used in the course of approving the corn for import, feed and processing on August 8, 2005 and again under the Novel Food and Food Ingredient Regulation on January 13, 2006. The data are available online, [4] but beware - the .pdf file is 1,140 pages long.

What, then is new? Merely a reinterpretation of the data, supported by Greenpeace. It, too, is available online. [5] The paper seeks to contradict findings made in 2003 by Germany's Robert Koch Institut by the EFSA and France's Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire in 2004 - all based on the same data, and all concluding that the rats were normal and the corn was safe.

In a nutshell, the Greenpeace-backed reinterpretation rests on data which show statistically significant differences in serum protein values or triglycerides mainly in rats fed *low* doses of MON863, but not in rats fed high doses of the corn. It's generally thought that the dose makes the poison, but in this case high doses showed no discernible effects. Does this truly reveal, as the title of the new paper suggests, "Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity?" The authors of the paper attempt to explain this by saying, cryptically, "This sex- and dose-related effect resulted in the fact that the growth variations of the 11% GMO males are *highly statistically lower* - than their controls, and 33%-GM fed females higher."

However you'd like to interpret that, it remains the case that scientists evaluating MON863 rat studies have consistently found the variations occured randomly, were generally of small magnitude, and were within the normal range for laboratory rats.

It is unfortunate that the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology charge non-subscribers US$32 to read this seven-page paper, since Greenpeace is and others are guiding media perceptions of a paper few have apparently read.

Greenpeace has the option, via the publisher of the paper, to pay a fee to make the paper available free of charge to the public. However, such a move is unlikely. Its conclusion is, essentially, a complaint that "the statistical methods used by Monsanto were not detailed enough to see disruptions in biological parameters." What is obviously an argument among statisticians would not justify the alarming headlines which this activist group has thus far succeeded in generating….

Read the full article at AgBioWorld.

Posted by AC Baumer at 3:33 AM | Permalink

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia (press release)
March 1, 2007

Excerpt…

Australia's traditional export markets for canola accept genetically modified (GM) canola just as readily as conventional canola - and pay a similar price for both.

Welcoming the release today of the ABARE report Market acceptance of GM canola, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, said the report found that GM canola was being accepted in markets throughout the world and non-GM canola did not appear to be attracting a price premium.

"Fears about GM canola have proved unfounded and consumers around the world now accept it to be a safe food ingredient. As a result of this, Australian growers of non-GM canola are not receiving any overall premium," Mr McGauran said.

"The analysis conducted by ABARE concludes there is nothing to support the concerns that unintended presence of GM canola in other grain exports, particularly wheat and barley, would adversely impact on trade.

"As well as debunking the myths of price premiums and the disruption to wheat and barley trade, ABARE has shown there is no basis to the fears expressed that products derived from animals fed GM feed would suffer in the marketplace….

Market acceptance of GM canola can be found on the ABARE website: www.abareconomics.com

Read the full story at Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia (press release).

Posted by AC Baumer at 3:14 AM | Permalink

BioPortfolio
March 21, 2007

PARIS (AFX) - The French agriculture ministry said it has authorised 13 field trials for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in 2007, adding that EU rules on GMOs will be adopted by decree 'before the end of March'.
The companies who have received licences for this year's round of trials are Syngenta (nyse: SYT - news - people), Pioneer, Librophyt, Biogemma, Monsanto (nyse: MON - news - people) and BASF (nyse: BF - news - people).

The number of trials compares with 17 in 2006.

The trials will include 12 for maize and one for tobacco. A 14th application, involving a genetically modified potato, was rejected by the Commission du Genie Biomoleculaire (CGB).

The CGB said it received 26,306 comments during a recent public consultation, adding that none caused it to reconsider its approval for the 13 trials.

Separately, the agriculture ministry said the French government will publish decrees before the end of the month in order to write EU rules on GMOs into national law….

Read the full article at BioPortfolio.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:53 AM | Permalink

Budapest Business Journal
March 15, 2007

Excerpt…

The European Union operates an effective ban on new gene-engineered seeds and risks missing out on the “invisible revolution” that's developing crops for cleaner fuels or washing detergents, the industry says.

Innovation by companies such as BASF AG and Bayer CropScience AG in developing nutritional changes to corn, plants for use in biofuels as well as food and feed crops that resist drought or disease is changing the market for genetically modified technologies. The EU has yet to approve new seeds for cultivation since lifting a five-year-old embargo in 2004. “The moratorium is still in place because no approvals for cultivation have been given” by European governments, said Hans Kast, CEO of BASF Plant Science.

“We have a go-slow situation in the EU, and the process needs to be accelerated because there's a long queue of applications,” he said in a telephone interview from Lyon, France. In the last three months, EU governments have refused to strike down Hungarian and Austrian bans on imports of Monsanto Co. and Bayer biotech corn varieties. They also blocked a BASF request to allow farmers to grow a potato genetically modified to boost its starch content, in the first EU vote on permission for planting of a biotech crop in eight years.

In September, the World Trade Organization ruled that the ban was illegal and declined to find the embargo has been lifted. The European Commission, the EU's executive in Brussels, is trying to persuade governments to drop their opposition to the technology on environmental or human health concerns. While biotech crops were planted in 22 countries last year, generating sales of about €4.66 billion ($6.15 billion) for farmers, just six of the EU's then 25-nations planted biotech crops in 2006, led by Spain with 60,000 hectares (152,400 acres), the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications said.

Meanwhile US farmers planted three times more biotech crops last year than their counterparts in Argentina, the second-largest user of the technology, according to the January ISAAA report. The area sown with biotech crops rose 13 percent last year, to 102 million hectares, the report said. The organization, which is funded by the biotech industry, predicts that the total area planted with such crops may double to 200 million hectares by 2015. “People don't realize there's an invisible revolution going on,” said Bernward Garthoff, chairman of the German Association of Biotech Industries and a board member of Bayer CropScience, the world's biggest developer of seed protection products….

Read the full article at Budapest Business Journal.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:40 AM | Permalink

All Headline News
By Richard Bowden
March 16, 2007

Beijing, China -- China is expected to increase its spending on agricultural biotechnology almost five fold by 2010 in an attempt to improve food security for its rapidly increasing population the Financial Times reported on Thursday.

China's population, currently 1.3 billion or twenty percent of the world's total, is expected to rise to 1.5 billion by 2020. Yet with only seven percent of the world's arable land, China needs to address the problem of feeding its people.

By increasing its research in genetically modified food products, China hopes to lessen its dependency on other countries for food products such as soy beans.

"The government takes the issue of food security seriously," said Zhang Liang Chen, president of the Agricultural University of China. "Last year we imported 17m tonnes of soybean from the US, Brazil and Argentina. This dependency could lead to trouble in the future."

Already accounting for twenty percent of the world's investment into global research into agricultural biotechnology, the spending is expected to more than quadruple as China attempts to meet soaring food demand….

Read the full article at All Headline News.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:14 AM | Permalink

GMO Africa
March 19, 2007

Excerpt…

The European Association for Bioindustries has unveiled a Green Biotechnology Manifesto, which spells out the road map for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) adoption in Europe.

Released at a biotechnology gathering in Lyons, France…the manifesto underscores the importance of agricultural or "green" biotechnology to Europe.

It calls on Europe to rethink its stand on agricultural biotechnology noting that, "planting [of genetically modified crops] in Europe has been much slower, but is accelerating as farmers start realizing the benefits of biotech crops."

"Biotechnology is being exploited at an accelerating rate by Europe's competitors, but if allowed to flourish, it will contribute to the increased economic and environmental sustainability of European agriculture and to efforts to ensure world food stocks keep up with rising demand," Adds the manifesto.

Perhaps, the most interesting observation one can make from this manifesto is its call on Europe to respect other countries' freedoms to grow and trade in genetically modified commodities.

"New biotech products and crops continue to be approved, cultivated and commercialized at a higher speed and in greater numbers in other parts of the world such as North America, South America, Asia, and South Africa," It observes, adding, "...the EU (European Union) does not permit any presence of biotech material, approved outside the EU, to be present in traded commodities entering the EU."

I have repeatedly pointed out in this blog that Europe needs to put its act together on GMOs. Europe's current anti-GMOs policies hurt farmers in developing countries more than it does its own. As the manifesto notes, the EU strictly prohibits agricultural imports containing minutest of GMOs. What this means is that most developing countries won't dare touch GMOs for fear of losing lucrative European markets for their agricultural products. By default, the EU has barred them from growing genetically modified crops.

This is unfair, to say the least. The EU accords member countries flexibility to grow or not to grow genetically modified crops. They're even free to trade their biotech agricultural products within the EU block unhindered. And the EU won't object if they donate, as relief aid, some of their surplus biotech food to developing countries. In fact, the European Commission (EC), the EU's executive organ, itself, hauls tones and tones of food, some of it biotech, to poor countries, "to feed the hungry and malnourished…."

…It's every farmer's solemn right, whether in Europe, Africa, Asia, or America, to experiment on new agricultural technologies such as biotechnology. Unfair laws, such as the ones being maintained by the EU, should never be allowed to stifle such endeavors.

Read full article at GMO Africa.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:29 PM | Permalink

Earthtimes.org
March 8, 2007

Excerpt from press release by U.S. Grains Council …

Biotech crops have produced a decade of improvements in yield and net farm income for grain, oilseed and cotton farmers. Now, according to a peer-reviewed study on the crops' global economic and environmental impact, the benefits are "clear" -- especially reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

In 2005, herbicide-tolerant biotech crops planted using conservation tillage practices helped to retain carbon in the soil. Insect-resistant crops dramatically reduced the need for spraying, while also significantly reducing farm fuel usage. All told, biotech crops, planted during their 10th year of use on 87 million hectares (215 million acres) by 8.5 million farmers, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 9 billion kg. (8.9 million tons). That's the equivalent to removing nearly 4 million family cars from the road for an entire year, according to study author Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics Limited of Dorchester, United Kingdom.

Biotech Crops and the Green Era

"Simply put, biotech crops have changed the way people farm," Brookes said. "Their environmental performance during the first decade of use shows the important role the technology is playing both now and in the future in helping global agriculture reduce its greenhouse gas emissions."

According to Brookes, countries such as the United States, Canada and Argentina have led the way toward these environmental benefits by utilizing herbicide-tolerant crops to switch to no- and low-till crop production. There and elsewhere, insect-resistant biotech crops also have reduced sprayings. It all adds up to less tillage and reduced field operations, he said.

Brookes' study estimates that since their commercialization in 1996, biotech crops have saved farmers 1,679 million liters (441 million gallons) of fuel through reduced field operations -- eliminating 4,613 million kg. of carbon dioxide emissions.

Disturbing the soil with conventional tillage releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. No- and low-tillage cropping systems that use biotech herbicide-tolerant varieties, Brookes said, leave more plant residue on the soil's surface, sequestering the carbon and contributing to soil and water conservation.

In Argentina alone, the study estimates that herbicide-tolerant varieties helped to increase no-till soybean plantings by 157 percent, from 5.9 million hectares in 1996 to 15.2 million hectares in 2005 -- reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20,988 million kg.

Worldwide, use of biotech crops decreased the environmental impact of crop production associated with pesticide use by more than 15 percent as calculated using Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) methodology, according to the study. Since 1996, herbicide tolerant and insect-resistant biotech crops reduced pesticide sprayings by 224 million kg. (500 million pounds) of active ingredient -- a 6.9 percent reduction worldwide. That reduction is equivalent to about 35 percent of the annual volume of active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union.

$5 Billion Benefit to 2005 Net Farm Income

According to Brookes' estimates, biotech crops contributed $5 billion in net farm-level economic benefit to farmers -- or $5.6 billion if the additional income arising from a second crop of soybean in Argentina is included.

Combining biotech insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits in corn has boosted farm income by more than $3.1 billion since the traits' introductions, Brookes noted.

The largest gains in farm income have come from biotech soybean and largely from cost savings. In 2005, herbicide-tolerant soybean generated $2.84 billion additional income -- adding about 7 percent to the value of the crop in biotech soybean growing countries.

Brookes summarized that the economic and environmental benefits of biotech crops are fairly evenly divided between farmers in developed and developing countries. In 2005, farmers in developing countries captured 55 percent of the additional net farm income generated by biotech crops globally. Over the 1996-2005 period, farmers in developing countries accrued 48 percent of the environmental benefits, primarily from reduced crop protection product usage.

The study's documentation of biotech crops' increased productivity and reduced environmental impact comes at a good time. "We are constantly being asked if North America can produce enough corn to meet food, fuel and export needs," said U.S. Grains Council Chairman Vic Miller, an Iowa corn producer. "The answer is yes, especially with the help of biotechnology. This study goes a long way toward documenting the production increases achieved with biotech crops. And greater yields mean more corn for ethanol, which -- unlike fossil fuels -- removes carbon dioxide from the air each time a new corn plant sprouts. Reduced environmental impact through biotech crop use is becoming an important selling point as we communicate with our grain trading partners."

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), more than half of the world's arable land (776 million hectares/1.9 billion acres) lies in 22 countries now approved for planting biotech crops. By 2015, ISAAA forecasts biotech crops will be under cultivation in 40 countries with at least 20 million farmers planting 200 million acres annually.

"Projecting forward, the environmental gains made possible with biotech crops have the potential to compound quite dramatically as the technology is available to more farmers worldwide. These are environmental benefits that if overlooked in the past will not be in the future," Brookes concluded….

Read the full article at Earthtimes.org.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:14 PM | Permalink

BioPortfolio
March 20, 2007

Excerpt…

Time to try the forbidden fruit GM food has had a terrible press, but without it we would all starve, argues biologist Olivia Judson.

I like genetically modified…food. I'd happily tuck into a bowl of GM soy; I'd even choose it over a bowl of organic soy. I know this sounds eccentric: genetic modification is usually decried. But while much has been made of possible risks, little is made of the considerable and real benefits. Genetic modification is a useful tool that could have helpful impacts, particularly on the environment. Indeed, in my view, support for GM is a green position.

Genetic modification sounds complicated. But actually, it's simple. There are only two things you need to know to make sense of it. The first is that a gene is a piece of DNA that contains the instructions for making a protein. Different proteins do different jobs within the body. Lactase, for example, is a protein that allows you to digest milk. The second thing you need to know is that genetic modification just means copying a gene from one organism - say, a jellyfish - and inserting it into another - perhaps a rabbit - so that the receiving organism can make a new protein.

Today, genetic modification is a routine technique in laboratories around the world. Since the potential for it was discovered, 30 years ago, millions of experiments with it have been done. One of the most common modifications is to insert a jellyfish gene into something else. The jellyfish Aequorea victoria has a gene for a protein called green fluorescent protein? The protein glows green when you shine blue light at it. If you add the gene for green fluorescent protein to the end of some other gene, you can see when that other gene is being used: a little green light goes on. This doesn't harm the organism - and gives us a way to watch what's happening in the cell.

What's more, there's nothing preordained, or even fixed, about which organisms make which proteins. As organisms evolve, some genes fall out of use and disappear, and new ones are added. From time to time, the new ones arrive from other organisms: in other words, genes sometimes jump from one species to another. For example, the fungi that live in cows' stomachs appear to have taken their genes for digesting cellulose from bacterialco-occupants of the stomach. (Cellulose is the stuff that plants put into their cell walls; we find it rather indigestible). There are several ways this can happen. And when we genetically modify an organism, we mimic this jumping.

The great advantage of GM is that it allows us to make precise tweaks to a plant or an animal. For thousands of years we've been doing genetic modification in a far cruder way, by selective breeding. Through this, we have created extraordinary varieties of animals and plants, taking them far beyond their natural state. From wispy grasses, we have developed new varieties of wheat and corn, impressive giants with plump kernels that we can harvest with machines. And we've bred exotica such as featherless chickens and super-muscly cows….

Original source: The Daily Telegraph – 03/19/07

Read the full article at BioPortfolio.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:02 PM | Permalink

Star Tribune (Jackson Hole)
March 14, 2007

Excerpt…

A decision temporarily halting the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa could affect Wyoming production, according to an alfalfa breeder and University of Wyoming professor.

Robin Groose, who teaches plant breeding and genetics, said the preliminary injunction issued Tuesday by a federal judge in response to a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture could cut into production of alfalfa in Wyoming.

Farmers who already have purchased the herbicide-resistant alfalfa seed must plant it by March 30. No new sales of the seed will be allowed, according to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's preliminary injunction order.

San Francisco-based Breyer ruled last month that federal authorities had failed to fully consider the public health, economic and environmental consequences before allowing the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa. The Center for Food Safety had sued on behalf of farmers who complained the genetically engineered seed could contaminate organic and conventional alfalfa. The seed, produced by Monsanto Co. and Forage Genetics International, is resistant to herbicides including the Monsanto-produced Roundup weed killer.

Wyoming, according to statistics provided by the USDA, annually produces 1.5 million tons of high-quality alfalfa for forage, grown on approximately 600,000 acres.

"It's unclear what the effect (of this ruling) would be at this point, but it is our most important crop," Groose said, adding that the genetically produced seed would help in weed control. "From an economic standpoint, (Roundup Ready) seed would benefit the growers who would want to use it."

The decision was hailed by some opposed to the genetically produced seed.

"Roundup Ready alfalfa poses threats to farmers, to our export markets and to the environment," said Will Rostov, spokesman for the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group.

A call to the Idaho-based Forage Genetics seeking comment was referred to Monsanto, where a spokesman said he's disappointed by the temporary injunction but hopeful it wouldn't stand.

"We are hopeful that a reasoned approach in this matter will address questions about the regulatory approval process for Roundup Ready alfalfa," said Jerry Steiner, a Monsanto executive vice president.

Oral arguments on the Center for Food Safety's request for a permanent injunction were scheduled for April 27.

Monsanto spokesman Andrew Burchett said the company would not be hurt financially by the prohibition on the sale of the seed because "this is not one of our major crops."

About 200,000 acres of genetically modified alfalfa already has been planted across the United States. The judge, in Monday's order, did not require those crops to be removed….

Read the full story at Star Tribune (Jackson Hole).

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:11 AM | Permalink

The West Australian
Jodie Thomson
Monday, March 12, 2007

Excerpt...

The State Government is expected to come under renewed pressure to lift its ban on genetically modified cotton crops after a committee appointed by Agriculture Minister Kim Chance found that the crop could expand agriculture in the north of the State.

A draft report says a GM cotton industry would be financially robust, create more than 120 direct full-time jobs and 100 from flow-on effects from 9000ha of crops.

It pointed to NSW and Queensland, which allow GM cotton to be grown commercially.

But the release of the paper, due to have been received yesterday, has been delayed a month, prompting criticism that it will further frustrate expansion plans on the Ord River, including the vital Ord Stage 2 project.

Mr Chance, who met the committee yesterday, said there were significant advantages to GM cotton — it was an ideal crop to rotate with sugar and brought a new base crop to the region. The trials over the past decade also showed that crop yields were strong.

“I believe GM cotton is a crop of the future for the valley, but like any new crop you need to understand the upsides and the downsides before you make a decision that it is going to be a goer,” he said. “The downsides are essentially about the crop being cotton, not about the crop being GM cotton. For example, while the GM crop uses less pesticides than conventional cotton, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t use any pesticides.”

He said the discussion paper would provide information to the Government but not make a recommendation on policy.

Ian Edwards, chairman of biotechnology industry body AusBiotech and a reference group member, said Mr Chance was using the group and public consultation period as a stalling tactic.

“GM cotton has now been grown for 11 years commercially in Australia, side-by-side with non-GM wheat in NSW and Queensland,” Dr Edwards said. “There is simply no rational excuse for not approving GM cotton in the Ord....”

Read full article at The West Australian.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:56 AM | Permalink

Financial Express
Sudhir Chowdhary
March 12, 2007

Excerpt…

Genetic modification is going through the same fear process which many technologies have seen in the past. "Any new technology would reach perfection over time and the same holds true for genetically modified (GM) or transgenic crops," says B Sesikeran, director, National Institute of Nutrition.

Despite remaining a sensitive issue here as well around the world, India is emerging as a test-bed for biotech crops. Several government-funded R&D projects are being carried out in research institutions to achieve this. Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad, among others, are engaged in advanced research to develop transgenic rice.

Reduction of post-harvest losses, particularly in fruits and vegetables, through delayed ripening genes, is also a major thrust. Besides IARI, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, Mahyco, Sungro Seeds and Monsanto are conducting multi-location field trials of transgenic crops like cabbage, cauliflower, corn, brinjal, groundnut, mustard, rice and tomato. Others like Indo-American Hybrid Seeds, Syngenta and Metahelix are working on this front to create their own indigenous technology.

The march to explore new transgenic crops comes from the newfound confidence gained from growing acceptance of Bt cotton, the only transgenic crop approved for commercial cultivation. 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.

The United States continues to drive growth in North America and globally, accounting for the greatest absolute acreage increase in 2006 with the addition of 4.8 million hectares. Brazil leads growth in South America with an increase of 22% to total 11.5 million hectares of soybeans and biotech cotton. Growth also continues in the countries of the European Union (EU) where Slovakia became the sixth EU country out of 25 to plant biotech crops.

All in all, farmers around the world continue rapid adoption of biotech crops. Biotech crop area is now 102 million hectares. The number of farmers planting biotech crops too has gone up to 10.3 million. Agriculturalists expect these adoption levels to continue accelerating in the times to come. By 2015, more than 20 million farmers are expected to plant 200 million hectares of biotech crops in about 40 countries.

Scientists aver that the importance and potential of transgenic crops is hard to ignore. Importantly, India - a country with first-hand experience of the life-saving benefits of the Green Revolution in wheat and rice - exported rice and imported wheat last year. Yields in both wheat and rice are now plateauing and the conventional technology currently used in wheat and rice and other crops will need to be supplemented to feed a growing population that will increase by 50% to 1.5 billion by 2050. Hence, the aggressive focus in research on new biotech crops.

KC Bansal, principal scientist, National Research Centre on Plant Biotechology (NRCPB) says, "Higher adoption rates reflect farmer satisfaction with the products that offer substantial benefits ranging from better crop management, lower cost of production, higher productivity and net returns per hectare."

The adoption of Bt cotton by India and China can greatly influence the adoption and acceptance of biotech crops in countries throughout the world, particularly in developing countries. It is noteworthy that both countries elected to pursue a similar strategy by first exploring the potential benefits of crop technology with a fibre crop, Bt cotton, which has already generated significant and consistent benefits in China, with the same pattern emerging in India, the largest grower of cotton in the world….

Read full article at Financial Express.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:25 AM | Permalink

AfricaBio (press release via SeedQuest)
March 13, 2007

Excerpt…

Top of the agenda for world leaders today is the alleviation of poverty and hunger, with the goal to cut poverty 50% by 2015. However, as Prof. Diran Makinde, from the School of Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry of the University of Venda in South Africa, pointed out in his presentation to Biovision, ten years after the 1996 World Food Summit, which promised to reduce the number of undernourished people by half by 2015, there are more hungry people in 2006 than there were in 1996. Prof. Makinde called for new approaches to ensure sustainable food production in developing countries; especially in Africa because the majority of least developed countries are in Africa.

Biovision heard that the estimated overall global economic benefit of GM crops from 1996-2004, amounted to $27 billion, and that 90% of the farmers benefiting from this are resource-poor, small-scale farmers. GM crops have directly contributed to the alleviation of poverty for some 7.7 million farmers.

Makinde referred to a study carried out in South Africa in 2002 in which Bt maize and Bt cotton were compared to non-Bt crop varieties and the Bt varieties, in both cases, were found to produce a higher yield and generate more profits. Two farmers using the technology in South Africa further substantiated these findings, Mr. Motlatsi Musi, a small-scale farmer in Olifantsvlei, South Africa said "I plant Bt maize because it has increased my yield and my income. I earn R3000.00 [$430.00] more from a Bt crop than from a non-Bt crop". Ms. Thandiwe Myeni, a small-scale farmer from Makhatini Flats, South Africa has been planting Bt cotton since 1999 and said "I get more than double yield per hectare from my Bt cotton than from my non-Bt cotton and I am also saving on pesticides by spraying only twice before harvest for Bt cotton, but weekly on my non-Bt cotton".

GM crops are so useful to farmers because they can be engineered to be resistant to diseases and pests and to have increases nutritional value, 'Golden Rice', rice enriched with vitamin A, is an example of this. Most importantly though, is the development and commercialisation of drought-tolerant crops, Makinde said drought-tolerant maize has just been approved to undergo field trials in South Africa and in the next 2 to 3 years drought resistant wheat could be ready for commercialisation in Egypt. The list of benefits doesn't end there, GM crops are also beneficial to the environment, reducing pesticide use for the period 1996 to 2004 by an estimated 172 500 MT, and advances in biotechnology are making it possible to genetically enhance plants to produce pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

Makinde questioned the EU's stance on GM crops asking why, in light of all the aforementioned benefits, they have adopted a 'go-slow' approach? Present EU policies and perceptions make R&D, product development and commercialisation in agricultural biotechnology difficult, especially in developing countries that engage in agricultural trade with the EU. European consumers generally perceive GM foods to be 'contaminated' and therefore developing countries that are dependent on the markets in Europe do not wish to grow them and are losing out on vast socio-economic benefits. There are also issues regarding the strict traceability requirements specified in the EU regulations, which most developing countries will find difficult and costly to implement and are unlikely to measure up to….

Read full article at SeedQuest.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:08 AM | Permalink

Agbioworld
Ghent, Belgium
March 8, 2007

Excerpt…

Different prominent scientists have expressed their concerns that Europe is damaging countries in the developing world by imposing its standards to regulate genetic modified (GM) crops. The current regulatory policy is damaging the prospects of public sector biotech to the point where most of its contributions are stalled. If this is the situation in South Africa and China, where experience in the development of GM crops and biosafety regulations are in place, what then is the hope for other developing nations that desperately need transformation towards a knowledge-based bio-economy.

An international discussion

On 20th February, at a public discussion organised by Friends of Europe, Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister for the Environment, has expressed concern that Europe is damaging countries in the developing world by imposing its standards to regulate GM crops. Also Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University, and a World Food Prize laureate commented: “This Debate is important because what we think and do in Europe affects poor people in developing countries.”

As a follow up to this event, the European Action on Global Life Sciences (EAGLES) invited plant researchers from South Africa, China and Brazil to hear their views on how European regulations on GM crops influence legislators in the developing world.

Former head of unit at the European Commission, DG Research and head of unit of biotechnology at the OECD Mark F. Cantley said:”The economic and political disincentives Europe imposes on the use of new technologies for environmentally friendly agriculture makes it impossible for the developing world to develop new improved crops”.

In her presentation, Professor Jennifer Thompson of University of Cape Town underlined the reality of this fact: “We are concerned about what we consider the European over-regulation and question whether this may prevent, or severely delay, the approval of plants that are desperately needed by poor Africans”.

Even China, according to Professor Chen Zhangliang, President of Beijing Agricultural University, has failed to approve the commercial release of GM rice due to concerns over future exports “even though China only exports 1% of its total rice production”.

Looking forward to other attitudes

Critics of GM crops can no longer base their campaigns of disinformation on arguments that biotechnology is simply a tool with which multinational corporations will subjugate unwitting farmers. Rather they should acknowledge that most, if not all innovative research in agricultural biotechnology in the developing countries is done in public research institutions working towards public goods outputs.

The EU’s Environmental Council has repeatedly ignored the advice of the EU’s expert advisory bodies, such as the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), on the proven safety of GM crops….

The Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries (IPBO) is an initiative of Gent University, Belgium, that is committed to building capacity in developing country agricultural programs through training, consultancy, collaborative and technology transfer services.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:03 AM | Permalink

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com
February 11, 2007

Excerpt…

For a month now, reports of dead cattle have occupied the centre stage in the Warangal, Khammam and Adilabad Districts of the Telengana area of Andhra Pradesh in India (Deccan Herald, February 7, 2007, The Hindu, March 2, 2007, GM Watch, March 4, 2007). None of the reports showed that Bt protein in the Bt cotton plants was the real culprit, but the purveyors of these reports would like the world to believe that there is something wrong with Bt cotton plants that cause these alleged animal deaths and so Bt transgenics should be banned.

With more than 90 per cent of cotton grown in the Telengana region being Bt cotton, the cattle graze on Bt cotton stubble. Since Bt protein is established beyond any reasonable doubt that it is non-toxic to mammals on account of its mode of chemical action, the investigation should concentrate on what other chemicals the dead/dying cotton plants contain affecting the cattle. The reported symptoms such as convulsions, nasal discharge, vomiting, respiratory problems and diarrhea can be caused by a variety of factors, and cannot be attributed exclusively to the chemical contents of Bt plants, as non-Bt cotton plants too contain the same chemical compounds except for the Bt protein.

A veterinary doctor reportedly said that the treatment is symptomatic since the 'culprit toxic substance is not identified’. ‘It needs more than a laboratory analysis to curb the occurrence of animal deaths due to suspected poisoning’ another veterinarian observed. The State Legislative Assembly seems to have been informed that no deaths of cattle attributable to the consumption of Bt cotton plants were reported. Yet the NGOs claim that the Government Veterinary Department ascribed the deaths to grazing Bt cotton plants.

I was in the Warangal District in the middle of December 2006, along with Professor Ronald Herring (Cornell University) and Dr S Shantharam (Biologistics International, US) and discussed sheep deaths with different groups of people and no one said that the sheep died only because they consumed Bt cotton plants.

The representatives of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CAS, Secunderabad), the most vocal face of anti-agricultural biotechnology and sheep death movement said that basing on the data provided by the Andhra Pradesh Shepherds Union, about 120 sheep died on eating Bt cotton leaves in 11 Mandals of Warangal and Khammam districts, last year. According to them there were many other reports of death of a large number of sheep in the region. CSA admitted that Bt protein is not toxic to mammals, but this wisdom evaporates when they go to the press. They also seem to consider that sheep deaths are due to ‘nitrate toxicity’. But the nitrate content was not estimated either in the plants or the sheep body fluids and tissues. Drought and water stress results in the accumulation of a large number of chemical compounds in the drying plants, such as resins, polyphenols such as gossypol and several others, which can be toxic when consumed in large quantities. Nonetheless, nitrates or other toxic compounds cannot be exclusive to Bt cotton plants

The Officers of the Department of Agriculture of the Warangal District we met said that sheep death cannot be attributed to Bt cotton and that residual pesticides are probably the cause, and sheep died even before Bt cotton was cultivated in the area.

An agriculture reporter of a local vernacular daily also does not believe that there is any connection between sheep deaths and Bt cotton.

We met several cotton seed and pesticide dealers who do not see any connection between Bt cotton and sheep deaths. They said that ‘Chituku rogam’, a fatal bacterial disease of sheep, appears in the District now and then.

Most of the large number of farmers we met in the District heard about sheep deaths but have no first hand knowledge of the issue. They have indicated that most reports of sheep deaths come from the township of Oorugunda where an NGO operates and also from the village area of Veladi.

None of the activists speak about sheep deaths that occurred before Bt cotton cultivation came into practice in this region. The big question is why cattle only in a few Districts of the Telengana region die? If cattle are reported to be dying on eating Bt cotton plants only in the Telengana region of Andhra Pradesh, the causes are probably elsewhere, other than in the Bt stubble.

Next wave of reporting would be about people who fell sick on drinking milk from the cows and buffalos that ate Bt cotton plants. The remedies are simple—provide the cattle with proper feed and prevent them from grazing on drying cotton plants, no matter Bt or non-Bt.

As per the records of the District Department of Agriculture, a compensation of Rs. 3.27 crore was paid to the farmers in the Telengana District on account of alleged failure of Bt cotton crop during the last couple of years. From this precedence, it looks that the Government of Andhra Pradesh and producers of Bt cotton seed should now get ready to dish out compensation for cattle deaths in Telengana.

Posted by AC Baumer at 2:25 PM | Permalink

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com
February 11, 2007

BOLLGARD II

Bollgard I, the predominantly cultivated pest tolerant cotton, contains only one gene, the Cry 1Ac, from Bacillus thuringiensis. Bollgard II contains the Cry 2 Ab gene, in addition to Cry 1 Ac. The Bollgard II event developed by Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd, (MMBL) is technically designated as MON 15985.

BOLLGARD II IS MORE PEST TOLERANT

While Bollgard I offers protection against only the major cotton pest, the American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), Bollgard II provides season long control of key pests of cotton including Spodoptera and Heliothis pests.

The major benefit of Bollgard I was a drastic reduction in the consumption of chemical pesticides and Bollgard II is expected to be even better in this regard. In Australia, Bollgard II has reduced pesticide use by up to 80 per cent.

In a decade of cultivation of Bollgard I in different parts of the world, there was no sign of development of resistance by the American bollworm to Cry 1 Ac protein. The synergistic influence of two genes in Bollgard II would further delay the development of resistance by the pests to the two insecticidal proteins.

BOLLGARD II IS WATER EFFICIENT

Two years of field experiments by CSIRO Plant Industry, Australia, showed that under normal full irrigation, Bollgard II cotton needed 10 per cent less water than an equivalent conventional variety and had higher yields. Bollgard II tends to produce bolls earlier than conventional cotton because insect damage does not delay early crop growth, has a more compact growing season and so needs less water overall, for the same or higher yields..

BOLLGARD II IN INDIA

In May 2006, the a href="http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/geac_home.html">Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) approved for commercial release, Bollgard II cotton hybrids containing MON 15985, developed by several different seed companies, but only for the Central and Northern Zones. Bollgard II cotton hybrids have completed two years of large scale open field trials under GEAC and two years of trials by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research under the testing system of the All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project. Several other varieties suitable for all the three zones are expected to be approved for this year’s cotton season.

The GEAC’s approval of Bollgard II for commercial cultivation was based on the recommendation of the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation on the efficacy and safety of the two stacked genes and that of the Director, Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur, that the event MON 15985 is as safe as non-transgenic cotton without any appreciable environmental risks.

BIOSECURITY OF BOLLGARD II

Some of the significant points that emerged from the biosecurity tests in India are:

1. outcrossing may occur only up to a maximum distance of 15 m;
2. there were no significant difference in germination, aggressiveness or weediness between Bollgard II and its non-Bt counterpart;
3. Bollgard II hybrids are not toxic to non-target insects;
4. Bt protein was not detected in soil samples indicating that Bt protein is rapidly degraded in the soil on which Bt cotton was grown;
5. there was no significant difference in populations of microbes and soil invertebrates like earthworms, between Bt and non-Bt soil samples;
6. there was no difference in proteins, carbohydrates, oil, calories and ash content between seeds of Bollgard II, Bollgard I and non-Bt;
7. no significant differences in feed consumption, animal weight gain and general animal health between animals fed with Bollgard II cotton seed and non-Bt cotton seed;
8. no significant differences were found between goats fed on Bollgard II and non Bt cotton seed and there were no toxic effects; and
9. feeding experiments conducted with Bollgard II cotton seed meal on fish, chicken, cows and buffaloes indicated that Bollgard II cotton seed meal is nutritionally equivalent, wholesome and as safe as the non-Bt cotton seed meal.

These data are in full agreement with the report in Australia, made to the Gene Technology Regulator, that Bollgard II posed no greater risk than conventional or existing Bt cotton in relation to various environmental and human safety parameters.

BOLLGARD II IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Bollgard II was not approved for commercial cultivation in the South Zone last season. Nevertheless, some farmers in the Warangal District have cultivated Bollgard II illegally, buying the seed in Maharashtra.

In November 2006, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GAP) has put on hold, permission to Mahyco for selling Bollgard II cotton seed in the State. The GAP has asked the GEAC to provide an economic viability report, in the context of MMBL’s claim that Bollgard II helps farmers to cut down inputs.

Seed of Bollgard II was sold at Rs. 1,350 per packet for one acre of sowing, in the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra. But GAP wanted it to be sold at Rs 750, the same as for Bollgard I, irrespective of the pricing in other States. Such dual pricing will create complications, and ignores the costs of development for the companies and the benefits that would accrue to the farmer.

In the anxiety of not letting another season go by, MMBL has signed last week an agreement with the seed companies to sell a packet of Bollgard II seed at Rs. 1,000, in the ensuing season. However, this is subject to the approval of the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, before which there is a pending case, filed by the GAP, against MMBL, on Bt cotton seed costs.

When the GEAC approves Bollgard II for the South Zone and the GAP approves the seed sale price, Bollgard II will hopefully be a legal tender in Andhra Pradesh, this coming season.

A word of caution: Studies by the CSIRO Plant Industry have shown that Bollgard II had lower yields when it was moisture stressed from peak flowering to the end of flowering, when boll filling started. So Bollgard II should not be cultivated as an exclusively rain fed crop.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:51 PM | Permalink

Aftenposten
by Neil Merrett
March 1, 2007

Excerpt…

The growing commercialization and continued innovation of genetically modified crops (GM) could have significant benefits for the food industry in Eastern Europe over the coming decade, says a leading Biotech expert.

In a conversation with CEE-Foodindustry.com, Europabio's Simon Barber explained that the increasing applications of GM like drought resistant crops will continue to change European perceptions on their use.

Europe currently remains well behind countries like the US, Canada and Brazil in terms of GM usage as it struggles with divided opinion on their use.

Despite countries like Slovakia and the Czech Republic using insect resistant maize for feed purposes, GM use is limited particularly in the developing markets of Central and Eastern Europe due to moral and health concerns.

Barber feels however that the developments of new bio-technologies like crops more resistant to drought will encourage both consumers and the food industry to accept the technology in the region.

"Along with increased nutritional outputs like healthier rapeseed oils, beneficial input implications like crops with better water-use efficiency will really benefit food production in the region,” he said.

"Though it is impossible to be exactly sure, within the next ten years I would expect the industry to become fairly advanced in what can be done."

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) drought resistance is one area in particular, which is seen as a key development for the growth of GM crops.

It predicts that the genes which expected to be available for commercial use by around 2011 will significantly reduce the affects of drought on grain production.

Drought has proved a major problem for grain processors particularly in Central and Eastern Europe where adverse conditions throughout both the summer and winter last year took their toll on soil quality.

As a result the International Grains Council (IGC) found grain production last year was down by 51m tones from 2005 due to poor harvests in countries like Poland and Ukraine.

The decline in grain stocks resulted in increasing prices for processors as demand in the region tightened.

Groups like US biotech giant Monsanto, which has testing already underway on water efficient crops, are hoping they can it can capitalise on demand for products resistant to climatic uncertainty.

Monsanto revealed earlier this year that trials of its drought tolerant corn and water efficient soy bean were found to produce higher yields of crop with less wilting.

The company's figures for 2006 found that yields of its drought resistant corn under drought stress in certain cases showed a 23.2 per cent increase over controlled non-GM corn production.

Besides GM applications in protecting the supply chain of raw materials, the increasing focus on nutritional benefits in food products to meet growing demand for wellness products is also seen as an important development.

This month alone, US research into food stuffs as simple as tomatoes and rice have found methods to amplify the nutritional benefits of a product.

University of Florida researchers have suggested that transgenic engineering of tomatoes has allowed them to increase the content of folates - which have been linked to reducing infant spina bifida by around 25 times.

The US department of agriculture has also announced its desire to develop nutritional benefits in food by approving the cultivation of GM rice engineered to produce the proteins lactiva and lysomin.

Test into the two proteins found naturally in breast milk suggest that they can have significant potential on diarrhoea.

While the US continues to lead the way in both GM research and yields, Barber was confident that producers in Eastern Europe would become increasingly receptive to the potential benefits of the products.

Not all are as keen to embrace GM use however, with some European states still coy on adopting the techniques into their food chains.

There are currently just six countries in the European Union currently employing insect resistant form of genetically modified agriculture out of a total of 25 member states.

Though some EU nations like France and Spain have expressed desire to increase their yields, other including Hungary remain staunchly opposed to any form of GM use.

Hungary has banned the use of any GM in its food chain, including a strain of insect resistance maize approved by the EU for feed use.

With the EU upholding Hungary's right to continue to outlaw GM use in the country, objection in the bloc could hold out for some time yet.

Hungary's reservations have also been backed by environmental groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who have expressed concern at the unknown long term health affects of GM, which it fears could pose a risk to consumer health.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Aftenposten
March 1, 2007

Excerpt…

A Norwegian professor predicts that genetically modified…food will soon be accepted in Norway, but that farmers will then lose out.

Professor Hilde-Gunn Opsahl Sorteberg at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) at Ås believes that GM products will be on Norwegian tables within ten years as the country follows after the growing international interest such food, newspaper Nationen reports.

Sorteberg also predicts that Norwegian authorities will allow genetically modified ingredients in processed food within two years.

Sorteberg believes that Norwegian farmers, like their counterparts abroad, will be the first to be won over to GM food. Genetically modified alternatives will become increasingly cheaper and oust traditional products for this reason.

"International research circles know that skepticism runs especially deep in Norway and that their products will meet resistance. For this reason they will not be bothered to develop varieties that are suited to the Norwegian climate, and thus Norwegian farmers will lose out in a global agricultural market," Sorteberg told Nationen.

Sorteberg argued that the varieties developed for milder climates will hardly be viable in Norway's hardier conditions.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:04 PM | Permalink

C. Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com
March 6, 2007

Dr Suman Sahai has taken pot shots at Bt technology once again, using Continuously Repeated Anti-GM Propaganda (CRAP).

Realizing that a proportion of bollworm larval populations exposed to Bt protein may develop resistance to it over generations, biotechnologists came up with strategies to prevent the onset of such resistance or at least delay it. An isogenic non-Bt refugium and stacking two different Bt genes are two well researched strategies in the context. However, in more than a decade of cultivation of Bt crops in the United States and elsewhere, not a single verifiable instance of resistance to even the single-gene Bt transgenics was reported.

The refugium is a tested multi-design concept to delay build up of resistance in monoculture agriculture. However, in India there are a dozen alternate crop hosts for the American cotton bollworm which obviates the need for the isogenic non-Bt cotton refugium, although its avoidance is ill advised.

Suman Sahai has an inherent inability to distinguish between problems of management and those of science and technology. She avers that farmers are not adopting the recommended practices in the cultivation of Bt cotton such as the refugium, but projects the ‘emergence of resistance in the bollworm, as well as problems created by other pests like pink bollworm and sucking pests’ as the failure of technology per se and not that of management. She even uses extraneous problems like cotton wilt disease as evidence to the failure of Bt technology.

Suman Sahai and her fellow activists have always rejected success stories of transgenic technology from other countries, but want us to believe in their misinterpretations of its failure outside India.

Suman Sahai cites a publication by Cornell University scientists on the performance of Bt cotton in China, qualified by her as a failure, since the Bt cotton farmers reportedly earn eight per cent less than non-Bt farmers and populations of other insects are on the increase. She asserts that the Cornell researchers anticipate the emergence of secondary pests which is likely to become a major threat where Bt cotton has been widely planted. However, Dr Jikun Huang, whose data were used by the Cornell research group, does not seem to agree with the latter’s interpretation that Bt cotton failed in China.

The study of the last cotton season by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, cited by Suman Sahai, did not conclude that the bollworm became resistant to Bt protein, but considered it only as one of several possibilities. She conveniently ignored the other observations in the Arkansas report that, a) the single protein Bt variety is working well to protect against tobacco budworms, b) the dual genetically protected Bt cotton, Bollgard II, is holding up well against both bollworms and tobacco budworms and c) the farmers are expected to switch to gene stacked Bt cotton varieties. Nevertheless, even before Bollgard II made any significance commercial presence in India, she prophesies that ‘the targeted pests will develop resistance’ to it.

Pest pressure, the function of the density of pest populations, is a well known variable, as for example, the cotton season of 2006-07 in India was a low pest pressure year. It is the rates of mortality and not just the pest density, that are important in assessing the efficacy of Bt technology.

Panchagavya is an Ayurvedic concept that contains cow’s milk, curds, ghee, urine and dung, not just the last two as understood by Suman Sahai. Several clinical studies have indicated some human therapeutic benefits of panchagavya and with neem leaf extract it is a pest repellent. Suman Sahai recommends a truncated panchagavya with herbal pesticides like pongamia oil as a part of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to control insect pests on cotton. Indian entomologists know of not just panchagavya, but of several other plant species with pesticidal activity. She does not consider Bt protein as an integral part of IPM, though entomologists have repeatedly asserted that this can be an eminent fit into IPM, as was the use of Bt for more than half a century, even in organic farming.

It looks that there are several US Patents for products incorporating panchagavya along with antibiotics for use as pharmaceuticals. Interestingly, for Suman Sahai a US patent suddenly becomes a validity statement on panchagavya’s efficacy. She should actually be fighting against such patents on Indian Traditional Knowledge, like it was done for neem and turmeric, though a patent in the US or anywhere else has no bearing in India and is no guarantee of its field success.

Farmers can certainly use panchagavya as a part of IPM, to overcome any possible deficiencies in the protection afforded by Bt technology, but Suman Sahai does not think of the volumes of panchagavya and the infrastructure that would be needed if panchagavya were to be used in crop protection by every Indian farmer.

The original panchagavya is an expensive proposition and would involve rearing large numbers of cow populations and preparing large volumes of curds and ghee, which the majority in India can ill afford even for their own consumption. Human urine was shown to have several benefits in autourine therapy (Shivambhu). Even this may prove to be useful as pest repellent. We have plenty of it around and there are patented devices to collect urine and store it temporarily.

Suman Sahai suggests the use of introduced natural predators of cotton pests as a biocontrol strategy. Half a century of such strategies has not yielded any lasting solution but even have pointed out to the emergence of new problems.

Suman Sahai repeats her misinterpretation of the paper from the Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur, to harp on the inadequacies of Bt technology to control the bollworm, even after the principal author of the publication has roundly rejected her misuse of their paper.

A polyphagous pest like the bollworm will never disappear from the crop fields. We should learn to prevent our losses by controlling it using a multipronged approach. Management, not technology per se is the problem, magnified by prejudice.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:16 AM | Permalink

GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe
March 7, 2007

Australia needs to review its attitude to genetically modified (GM) crops so the Top End can be transformed into the nation's food bowl, Liberal senator Bill Heffernan says.

Senator Heffernan told Fairfax newspapers that GM crops such as cotton were more environmentally friendly because they were more water efficient and required less chemical pesticides.

Even though West Australia has banned all GM crops, trials of GM cotton near Kununurra in far north WA had highlighted its potential as a commercial crop.

"One of the things which would make Kununurra immediately viable would be GM cotton production," Senator Heffernan said.

"The taskforce and Northern Territory and West Australian governments have to come to terms with a change of attitude on things like GM produce."

Rice growers had also expressed formal interest in moving to the water-drenched Top End, which Senator Heffernan said could develop itself as one of the world's great food, fibre and energy exporters as countries such as India and China faced problems with food production due to increasing water storages.

"One of the most alarming things about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is that in 50 years' time, 50 per cent of the world's population is going to be water poor," he said.

"If Australia is to remain an aggressive world marketer in primary industries, it needs to look at all the opportunities that present themselves with climate change."

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:10 AM | Permalink

CheckBiotech
February 28, 2007

Excerpt…

SAO PAULO -(Dow Jones)- Brazil's Senate Tuesday approved a resolution that would cut the number of votes needed for the approval of genetically modified organisms - a move that could have widespread implications for multinational makers of transgenic seeds such as Monsanto Co. (MON), Syngenta (SYT) and Bayer CropScience (506285.BY).

The resolution, however, still must gain the signature of Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva before it passes into law.

"President Lula now has 15 days to accept or not accept the Senate's resolution," a spokeswoman for Brazil's Biosafety Commission, or CTNBio, said in a phone interview with Dow Jones Newswires.

However, Environmental Minister Marina Silva and others are planning to lobby to block presidential approval, according to a report in local Agencia Estado newswire.

"We don't want to see this transgenic bill approved," Silva said, according to the report.

Commercial approval to plant transgenic seeds currently depends on a two- thirds majority vote from CTNBio….

Of the 27 members of the commission who have voting power, just 14 votes are needed for approval if the Senate resolution becomes law, instead of the 18 votes previously.

Only Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy and Bollgard cotton are currently permitted on Brazilian farms.

Makers of transgenic corn, like Bayer CropScience and Syngenta Seeds, are still waiting for CTNBio to approve their products. Six of the 10 transgenic seeds awaiting government approval are corn, three are cotton and one is rice.

However, environmentalists warn that the dangers of genetically modified crops are little-known, and could contaminate the surrounding land, pose hazards to human health, and impoverish Brazil's rich biodiversity.

Brazil is a leading global agricultural powerhouse, and one of the world's top producers and exporters of soy, coffee, sugar, ethanol, orange juice, chicken and beef.

-By Grace Fan, Dow Jones Newswires; 5511 3145 1489; brazildowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
02-28-07 1354ET
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:12 AM | Permalink

AgBios
Stephen Daniells
March 2, 2007

Excerpt…

Rice genetically modified to have high flavonoid content has a 22 per cent higher antioxidant activity than untransformed rice, says a joint German-Indian study.

"The transgenic rice and its derived foods may serve as potential source of antioxidant compounds and this helpful in promoting human health," wrote lead author Ambavaram Reddy in the Elsevier journal Metabolic Engineering.

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. Consumer acceptance…continues to be one of the biggest challenges for these crops.

Researchers from Hamburg University and the University of Hyderabad used the "one gene-multiple metabolites" metabolic engineering concept to produce strains of rice that overexpress the anthocyanidin synthase (ANS) enzyme, obtained from a mutant strain of rice Nootripathu.

The ANS enzyme is part of the flavonoid biosynthetic pathway (the path for producing flavonoids in the plant) and catalyses the formation of coloured anthocyanidins from colourless leucoanthocyanidins, thereby serving as a visible marker of the degree of anthocyanidin production.

Interest in flavonoids is growing rapidly and a mounting body of science, including epidemiological, laboratory-based and randomised clinical trials, continues to report the cancer-fighting potential of a number of different flavonoids, such as isoflavones, anthocyanidins and flavonols.

Five different forms of transgenic rice were produced, and named 2T, 5T, 6T, 9T and 10TC. The latter (10TC) was found to contain the highest levels of anthocyanins (2.52 micrograms per milligram) and the flavonol quercetin (1.37 micrograms per milligram), and the lowest proanthocyanidins (0.09 micrograms per milligram), compared to the control rice (0.12, 0.55, and 0.4 micrograms per milligram, respectively).

This strain was also found to have the highest antioxidant activity with 98 per cent of radicals scavenged, compared to 77 per cent for the untransformed plant, measured using the DPPH (1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl) radical assay.

"Our study is a step towards the development of rice that is nutritionally superior to the traditional and high yielding varieties in terms of antioxidant potential," wrote the authors.

"This strategy can be extended to different food crops to promote biofortification with natural products of nutritional value and to other agriculturally important crops for enhanced resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses," they concluded.

Rice is the primary food for more than three billion people around the world.

Source: Metabolic Engineering
Volume 9, Pages 95-111
"Novel transgenic rice overexpressing anthocyanidin synthase accumulates a mixture of flavonoids leading to an increased antioxidant potential"
Authos: A.M. Reddy, V.S. Reddy, B.E. Scheffler, U. Wienand, A.R. Reddy

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:10 AM | Permalink

Agriculture Online
March 6, 2007

Excerpt…

Farmers might part with more of their money this coming crop season to cash in on the biofuels revolution, according to a Purdue University release.

With corn and soybean prices climbing higher and faster than agricultural input prices, producers likely will spend more to ensure high yields, says Alan Miller, a Purdue farm business management specialist.

"Last year we were in a cost-price squeeze and the story really was cost," Miller says. "This year the prices of crops have far outpaced input prices and have changed the whole picture. In general, what we'll see is that input prices overall probably will be flat but that we'll still see a rise in crop costs in 2007. With higher prices for corn and soybeans, producers are going to go back to thinking top yield and may be more willing to pour on the inputs."

An online resource could help farmers calculate their crop production costs. The 2007 Purdue Crop Cost and Return Guide can be downloaded at http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/extension/pubs/ID166_2007.pdf.

Demand for corn to feed the growing ethanol industry has pushed December 2007 corn futures prices above $4 per bushel, roughly $1.30 a bushel above where December 2007 corn was trading as recently as this past September. Over the same time period, November 2007 soybean futures prices have risen about $2 per bushel, fueled in part by an expectation that more corn acres likely means a reduction in soybean acres.

The biofuels boom could affect how much fertilizer and pesticides farmers apply to their crops, as well as the hybrid varieties they plant, Miller says.

Nitrogen fertilizer prices dropped about 17 percent between early spring 2006 and midyear because of a reduction in natural gas prices, Miller said. Since then, fertilizer prices have risen steadily and should continue their march upward if farmers commit more acres to corn, he said.

"I think we're going to continue to work back toward where we were with prices last spring, when the USDA reported an average price for anhydrous ammonia of $543 per ton in the north central region," Miller says.

Farm chemical prices also are likely to inch up, Miller says.

"For quite a while in the early 2000s you could just about say that chemical prices were flat," he says. "They really weren't, because the generics were going down in price and the new products and formulations were going up in price, and the two offset each other.

"About a year and a half ago chemical prices actually turned up, in terms of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's index of prices paid. I would expect that average annual increase of one to two percent to continue. There are still a lot of opportunities for farmers to shop around and try to hold those prices in line, however."

Because crop production volumes could be critical, farmers also might be more inclined to spend a little extra on seed able to tolerate certain herbicides and withstand some crop-damaging insects, Miller says. The genetically modified hybrids likely will displace some chemicals farmers would have purchased, he said.

"The demand for corn for ethanol is certainly going to change farming practices in Indiana," he says. "One of the concerns in the past has been, do we grow genetically modified corn? Well, that kind of corn works just fine for ethanol plants.

"I think we're seeing a fairly rapid adoption of corn seed of the genetically modified varieties. For example, some observers think we'll have a big increase in herbicide-tolerant genetically modified varieties this year, because of the convenience and being able to get the crop planted in a shorter window of time, and control weeds in the process."

Other factors could affect crop production costs, as well, Miller says. They include:

• Land rents
The amount farmers pay landowners to grow crops on their property is expected to increase.

"In the last few years the contribution margins -- the return above variable costs that are available for farm operators and landowners to share -- were as low as I'd seen them since I have been involved in estimating costs and returns for Indiana corn and soybean production," Miller says. "This year Purdue's estimates indicate there's been quite a jump in the contribution margin…."

• Farm machinery prices
"Even during the cost-price squeeze, we saw machinery prices march steadily upward, at an average annual rate in the four- to five-percent range," Miller says. "I don't think we're going to see that change anytime soon."

• Weather and pests
Too much or too little rain, crop diseases and insects could reduce yields, or destroy crops altogether.

"We could have soybean rust, we could have a drought -- who knows what could happen," Miller says. "Producers and farmland owners alike need to be careful not to go too far overboard in adjusting their expectations and production plans."

• What's your attitude on crop inputs this year? Take the poll and join the discussion

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:02 AM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
March 5, 2007

Excerpt…

Genetically modified, or GM, canola is finding ready acceptance in international markets at prices very similar to those received for conventional canola, according to ABARE’s new "Market acceptance of GM canola" research report.

The report examines acceptance of GM canola in world markets. Concerns about acceptance led to moratoriums being imposed by state governments on the commercial production of GM canola in Australia’s key canola producing states.

"The report found that, in the traditional import markets for canola – Japan, Mexico, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh – GM canola is generally accepted as readily as conventional canola and is priced at very similar levels," ABARE Executive Director Phillip Glyde says.

"Despite perceptions of resistance to GM grains in world markets, countries that are producing GM varieties of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola dominate the world export trade in these grains."

Glyde also pointed to the already wide use of products from GM crops in the domestic Australian market, particularly with domestically produced GM cottonseed and imported GM soybean products, and suggested that GM canola will generally be accepted by food manufacturers and consumers in Australia’s domestic market.

Australia’s traditional export markets for canola accept genetically modified (GM) canola just as readily as conventional canola – and pay a similar price for both.

In welcoming the report Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran, said: "Fears about GM canola have proved unfounded and consumers around the world now accept it to be a safe food ingredient. As a result of this, Australian growers of non-GM canola are not receiving any overall premium. The report also confirms that Australia…is already a large consumer of GM products".

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:32 AM | Permalink