GMO Food for Thought

GMO Pundit
Ian B. Edwards, PhD; D.Sc; FCSSA
Chairman – AgBio Advisory Group – AusBiotech
June 23, 2007

Excerpt…

Australia has one of the most rigorous and transparent gene technology regulation Acts in the world, and is achieving its objective in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment. This was one of the key findings of the Independent Panel Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000, published in 2006. To those involved in the life sciences industry the act is considered almost draconian in its level of rigor, but most accept the fact that if we are to build public confidence in agricultural biotechnology it is both necessary and should be respected. However, this is clearly not the viewpoint of certain NGO’s ideologically opposed to biotech crops, and certainly not the viewpoint of Kim Chance, Western Australia’s Minister for Agriculture.

Under Australia’s Act the areas of human health and safety are a Federal mandate, while the states do have certain marketing rights. However Minister Chance, not content with imposing a state moratorium in April 2004 on the growing of all biotech or GM crops in Western Australia, took it upon himself to openly criticize Food Standards Australia – New Zealand (FSANZ) for not adequately safeguarding human health. In late 2005 he made public his intent to commission an independent feeding trial on GM crops so that supposedly unbiased data would be obtained. He openly expressed a concern shared by Greenpeace that, because the companies submit data to the Gene Technology Regulator it is somehow automatically subject to bias. Lost in all this was the fact that Australia subscribes to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX), which mandates world’s best practice in food standards, and FSANZ not only uses the information supplied by companies and independent laboratories commissioned to do the specialized animal feeding trials, but also takes account of peer reviewed university studies and the findings of other regulatory systems such as the US, Canada, and the European Union.

The group he selected to conduct the feeding studies was the Institute for Health and Environmental Health in Adelaide, comprising three individuals (led by Dr Judy Carman), none of whom have scientific records in conducting or analyzing long term feeding studies. Dr Carman toured around with UK activist Dr Mae Wan Ho to speak against GM crops and food safety. Ho has a relentlessly anti-science agenda against GM crops (and modern Darwinian theory), while Carman has constantly attacked FSANZ for alleged food regulatory inadequacies, and had two articles (“Health Concerns” and “Threats to our Health”) published in Greenpeace’s True Food Guide 2003. To most rational individuals this would have raised a flag about Dr Carman’s competency to conduct independent trials, but not to Minister Chance….

Full article at GMO Pundit.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:31 PM | Permalink

GMO Pundit
Nina V. Fedoroff, Evan Pugh Professor and Verne M. Willaman Chair of Life Sciences, Penn State
June 23, 2007

Excerpt…

In chapter seven of his environmental masterpiece Walden, Henry David Thoreau writes about his bean field: “…making the yellow soil express its summer thought in bean leaves and blossoms rather than in wormwood and piper and millet grass, making the earth say beans instead of grass—this was my daily work.”

You may wonder why I begin an essay on genetically modified foods with a quote from Thoreau. But to me, environmentalism and plant breeding are inextricably linked. Our civilization rests on our ability to make the earth say beans. Other creatures feed their young, but the adults of most species fend for themselves, spending much of their day doing it. By contrast, we humans have learned to farm. Over the last few centuries, advances in science have let fewer and fewer farmers feed more and more people, freeing the rest of us to make and sell each other hats and houses and computers, to be scientists and politicians, painters, teachers, doctors, spiritual leaders, and talk-show hosts. In some parts of the world, only one person in a hundred grows plants or raises animals for food. Most of us are surprisingly unaware of what it takes to create our bread and breakfast cereal, pasta and rice, those perfect fruits and vegetables, unblemished by insect bites or fungal spots. Free to live our lives with little thought for our food, we ignore the source of the gift.

Our civilization rests, in fact, on a history of tinkering with nature—on making the earth say beans instead of grass. Thoreau’s beans were not wild. The pod of a wild bean bursts when its seed is ripe, flinging the bean far from the parent plant to find a new place to sprout. The pods of those beans we grow for food do not burst. Such beans can no longer seed themselves. Nor can the wild grasses we have changed, over the millennia, into our staple food sources: rice, wheat, and corn. To change a wild plant into a food plant requires changes in the plant’s genes. To boost its yield, to make the earth say more beans, means changing the plant’s genes, as well. For thousands of years, farmers have been picking and choosing plants, propagating those with the genetic changes—mutations—that made them better food plants. Our civilization is the beneficiary of this genetic tinkering.

I have been studying plant genes—and tinkering with them—since the early 1980s, when I had the good fortune to work with Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock, whose discovery of “transposons,” popularly called “jumping genes,” rewrote our concept of a gene. By identifying and cloning a jumping gene in 1984, I was able to identify the DNA sequences of McClintock’s transposons and then to analyze and understand how they operate. Today we know that the genome is full of transposable elements and is constantly changing. Instead of being static “beads on a string,” genes can move from one chromosome to another. Although the genes themselves are conserved over long evolutionary periods, there have been, and continue to be, numerous rearrangements, transpositions, duplications, and deletions, many of which are the work of the restless transposons.

McClintock and I worked on corn, and since then I and my students have used many of the techniques of genetic engineering invented in the last 20 years to uncover the secrets of how transposons and other kinds of plant genes work. I have never applied my knowledge to making a genetically modified crop, but my familiarity with both the techniques and the corn genome made me pay attention when corporations began doing so—and when the federal government began regulating the field-testing and marketing of these crops. I have given numerous public lectures on genetically modified foods and, with co-author Nancy Marie Brown, have written the book Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods, published in 2004 by Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press….

Full article at GMO Pundit and the Penn State Science Journal.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:18 PM | Permalink

FoodConsumer.org
David Liu
Jun 23, 2007

Here is the excerpt of an article from FoodConsumer.org on the benefits of GM crops, such as mushrooms.

Excerpt…

Mushrooms, the smallest rooms in the world, have already proved to be healthy foods. Scientists have now genetically modified mushrooms such that they might serve as bio-factories for the production of various beneficial human drugs, according to new research released Friday June 22, 2007.

"There has always been a recognized potential of the mushroom as being a choice platform for the mass production of commercially valuable proteins," said Charles Peter Romaine, who holds the John B. Swayne Chair in spawn science and professor of plant pathology at Penn State.

"Mushrooms could make the ideal vehicle for the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals to treat a broad array of human illnesses. But nobody has been able to come up with a feasible way of doing that."

Dr. Romaine and Xi Chen have developed a technique to genetically modify Agaricus bisporus -- the button variety of mushroom, the predominant edible species worldwide.

Using the technology, transgenic mushrooms may be used as bio-factories to produce therapeutic proteins such as vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and hormones like insulin or commercial enzyme such as cellulase for biofuels, which if produced from other sources have been known to be of low efficiency.

"Right now medical treatment exists for about 500 diseases and genetic disorders, but thanks to the human genome project, before long, new drugs will be available for thousands of other diseases," Dr. Romaine said.

"We need a new way of mass-producing protein-based drugs, which is economical, safe, and fast. We believe mushrooms are going to be the platform of the future.”…

Full article at FoodConsumer.org.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:37 AM | Permalink

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India
June 22, 2007

The Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP) is issuing an Ordinance restricting the maximum sale price of 400 g of Bt cotton seed required for an acre to Rs. 750. The package also includes 50 g of non-Bt cotton seed to plant the refugium. This Ordinance is being bought in to ostensibly protect the farmer, after the Central Government removed cotton from the protected list of essential commodities.

The Ordinance applies to the whole State, but the focus is on the Warangal District, the fountain head of all anti-GE activism. In the climate of appeasement politics, the State Government gains some brownie points from the Ordinance, but in effect this does not help the farmer much. The AP Government should be doing several other things for the benefit of the farmers.

Last year, AP Government fixed the price of Bt cotton seed per acre at Rs. 750. But due to short supply, some favourite varieties were on the black market and the same thing happens this year too, making Governmental price control a mockery. The sale receipts show only the official price and not the higher price paid by the farmer. The farmers pay higher price if they think that a particular variety is worth it, as for example, Bollgard II (BGII), the two Bt-genes stacked cotton. Last year, though BGII was not approved in AP, some farmers in the Warangal District bought BGII seed in Maharashtra at a high cost and cultivated. The Government should ensure that only the authentic seed of approved varieties of Bt cotton is sold through registered outlets, and ruthlessly weed out black marketing, to save the farmers from racketeers.

Last year there were several different varieties of Bt cotton on the market in the AP. The farmers were not sure of which to choose, and so planted different varieties on one- or two-acre plots each. Though the farmers might now be wiser from last year’s experience, the confusion continues as there are several more new varieties available this year. The Government should first advise the farmers on the choice of the varieties suitable to different regions in the State.

There is a flourishing market for illegal Bt cotton seed which may be cheaper than the legal varieties. There are also the problems of spurious Bt seed, often in authentic looking packages and Bt seed of poor quality, in terms of germination percentage, viability and plant establishment. The AP Government should ensure that the farmers get quality seed certified by its own Seed Testing Agency.

As the availability of water is critical at certain stages of the cotton crop, the farmer should be advised on the time, frequency and quantum of irrigation. Excessive pesticide application on Bt cotton, under panic or over enthusiasm, is wasteful, affects the health of the farm labour, harms non-target organisms and contaminates soil and water. Excessive fertilizer application, particularly under drier conditions, results in an accumulation of nitrates that are toxic to animals that feed on the crop stubble. Planting of a refugium is a scientific precaution against development of resistance by the American bollworm to Bt proteins, and a statutory requirement, which is largely ignored by the farmers. The AP Government should ensure that a refugium is planted by all the farmers and also represent to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee to permit non-cotton refugium (preferred by the farmers), which will be as effective as the non-Bt cotton refugium, since the American bollworm feeds on several other common crops.

Farmers should be advised to practice inter-cultivation so that one crop would at least partially compensate, if there were any losses from the other. They should be advised to adopt crop rotation to prevent perpetuation of pest and pathogen load and depletion of the same set of soil nutrients, which ensue if the same crop is cultivated years on.

That AP has not constituted the State Level and District Level Committees to oversee and monitor the cultivation of genetically engineered crops has been a serious complaint. Under the country’s Statutes in force, it is irregular to cultivate GE crops without forming these Committees.

The private seed dealers have a responsibility to the farmer in providing adequate and timely guidance, which was largely unfulfilled. By and large, there was no authentic information on cultivation practices. The Government should ensure that the dealers take their post-sale responsibilities seriously. The State Government should carry out its own fundamental responsibility of ensuring that the farmers receive guidance through the scientific and extension personnel of the Department of Agriculture and public sector institutions, more particularly on what the farmers should not do.

The Government should ensure that the farmer gets a fair price, eliminating middlemen.

A couple of years ago, the AP Government directed the Officers of the Department of Agriculture to discourage cultivation of cotton on red soils and under rain fed conditions, especially where the annual rainfall is less than 60 cm, and not distributed over the crop season. That cotton should not be grown as a rain fed crop is now realized also in the Vidharbha region of Maharashtra State, which is the other ‘Bt cotton disaster’ story area. The widows of some farmers who have committed suicide in this area have recently represented to the President of India that ‘there must be a blanket ban on Bt cotton seeds in the dry land farming areas’. The AP Government should now take its own advice seriously and ensure that this is implemented urgently, no matter what the friends of the farmers say.

Seed quality control and crop husbandry are more important in enhancing farmers’ welfare than ineffective and ill-advised price control orders.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:39 PM | Permalink

GMO Compass
June 22, 2007

Excerpt…

The slow approval procedures for GM plants in the EU likely will affect the European meat industry, according to an internal report of the European Commissions’ DG AGRI cited by Agrar Europe. While an average of only 15 months is needed for the approval of a new GM plant in the USA, 2.5 to 10 years are required in the EU.

This "asynchronous authorisation" already has caused trouble for food and feed producers, such as in cases of GM maize approved in the USA but not in the EU. However, a new soy bean variety, Roundup Ready 2 from Monsanto, is likely to have an impact unseen before. The main EU-importing countries USA, Argentina and Brazil are likely to have adopted the new variety by 2009/10, whereas the process will take several years in the EU and potentially will lead to a shortfall of soy imports.

Due to the importance of soy as feed in the farming of pigs and poultry, the report predicted extreme changes in the EU meat sector. In the worst-case scenario, the EU would be faced with an import deficit of 32 million tonnes, of which only approximately 20 percent could be substituted by increased local production….

Full article at GMO Compass.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:13 PM | Permalink

Agbioworld
Ratnajyoti Dutta, NewsWire18
June 21, 2007

Here is the excerpt from an interesting article published by Agbioworld about agricultural biotechnology.

Excerpt…

NEW DELHI - Biotechnology application at field levels can help reduce yield gaps as demonstrated by the experience in Bt cotton, but steps should be ensured to make such application full proof before the field trials, experts said.

India has been battling dismal yields in almost all major crops with the total food grain output stagnating at around 200-210 mln tn in the last one decade or so.

"Technology can fill up existing yield gaps," said Bhagirath Choudhary, National Co-ordinator of International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

For instance, though Punjab has a yield of 3,500 kg rice per ha, in Madhya Pradesh, it is at its lowest of 840 kg per ha.

National yield average in rice stands at around 2,000 kg per ha.

Egypt has achieved a yield of 9,500 kg per ha, the highest in the world, with hybrid varieties of rice developed locally.

Similarly, in wheat, the yield is highest in Punjab at 4,593 kg per ha and lowest in Maharashtra at 1,342 kg per ha.

The country's average yield is around 2,753 kg ha.

Tamil Nadu has the highest oilseed yield of 1,600 kg, while Orissa has a dismal 450 kg per ha yield. National yield for oilseeds stands at 859 kg per ha.

"The basic issue is how to raise the national average yields to the best level and the lowest yield level to at least the national average," Choudhary said adding that the answer lies in biotechnology.

In its latest estimate, the government has revised food grain output in the current crop year ending June at 211.8 mln tn as compared with the production target of 220 mln tn for this year set earlier.

Increased farm output in the next three or four years can come either through reducing existing yield gaps or expanding acreage, but the scope of raising output through area expansion is extremely limited, experts said.

Agriculture Secretary P.K. Mishra believes medium and long-term measures demand a focus on increasing the per hectare yield, and for which, better varieties of seeds are needed.

He rued the fact that there has not been any major breakthrough in high yielding varieties of seeds.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, at the National Development Council meeting last month, had also stressed on the need to reduce the yield gap in farm sector.

Reduction in yield gap is extremely critical for ensuring balanced regional growth and economic prosperity in rural areas.…

Full article at Agbioworld. Original press release at CrisilMarketWire.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:05 PM | Permalink

Agbioworld
Robert Wager, Times Colonist (Victoria, Canada)
June 18, 2007

Excerpt…

Re: "Activists sound alarm over sterile zombie seeds," June 13.

The ETC Group has long claimed biotechnology represents a threat to the public.

The problem is that exactly none of its dire predictions about biotechnology in general and genetically modified (GM) food specifically have come true.

The world is rapidly incorporating GM crops into agriculture systems and those who continue to push unsubstantiated fear are being ignored….

…GM crops are certainly not the bogeyman some would have us believe.

Full article at Agbioworld. The original article can be found at Canada.com.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:47 AM | Permalink

The Hindu Times
June 17, 2007

Here is the excerpt from an article in The Hindu Times on agriculutural biotechnology.

Excerpt…

Mumbai, June. 17 (PTI): US biotech major Monsanto, which had earlier launched insect-resistant genetically modified BT cotton, plans to soon come out with drought-tolerant GM maize and cotton seeds, a senior company official said.

The drought-tolerant cotton and maize seeds were already undergoing field trials in the US. Once launched in India, it would help farmers as most of the agriculture in the country was rain-fed, Rajendra Ketkar, deputy managing director of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd, told PTI.

Monsanto was also developing weed-resistant GM cotton seeds, for which trials were going on in Australia, Ketkar said, adding this would take a couple of years.

India's farm productivity is as low as one-third of the world average and raising yield using hybrid and genetically modified variety would help the country to raise output three times without bringing additional area under cultivation.

Ketkar claimed four million farmers have switched over to genetically modified BT cotton (bollgard) in nine states and nearly half of the 22 million acres under cotton cultivation in the country was now using this variety.

On the drought-resistant varieties, he said "this would be a great boost to farmers located in highly dry areas or who just depend on irrigation for their farming"….

Full article at The Hindu Times.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:16 AM | Permalink

Hunger Artist Blog
June 16, 2007

Excerpt…

Greenpeace, an organization I generally respect and have contributed money to, really has its head up it's ass on the subject of genetically engineered food. At least that how it sounds on the subject of a GE form of rice that has been modified to produce an important precursor to vitamin A (beta carotene) which is critical to the development of eyesight in humans.

Golden rice was developed by Peter Beyer and Ingo Portrykus and seed would be distributed for free to farmers (earning less than $10K per year) in countries where vitamin A deficient diets are responsible for at least 500K cases of childhood blindness each year. But because of opposition by Greenpeace and other knee-jerk anti GMO types, it's been a hard sell. I suppose I might be less troubled by their opposition if it was based on sound reasoning but this hardly seems to be the case. Consider this explanation for opposing the distribution of Golden Rice taken from Greenpeace's web site.

The human food safety of GE rice is unknown. However, the environmental risk of GE rice is clear. Golden Rice could breed with wild and weedy relatives to contaminate wild rice forever. If there were any problems the clock could not be turned back.

When the risk is high, the potential consequences devastating, and the benefits unclear, precaution is called for.

Human food safety? This is idiotic and a non-issue. Beta carotene is found in thousands of plants many of which have been consumed by humans for tens of thousands of years. Carrots are loaded with beta carotene; should we suppress the cultivation of carrots?

And how is the potential escape of a gene for beta-carotene into stocks of wild rice a risk? Even if you take the position that the genome of a wild plant should not be allowed to become "infected" with genes from an agricultural type (an absurd position anyway since genes from even widely unrelated organisms are moving between one form and another via transfer by viruses) you'd be hard pressed to prove that the presence of beta carotene poses any kind of risk….

Full article at Hunger Artist Blog.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:28 AM | Permalink

Adam Smith Institute Blog
Aeon McNulty
June 14, 2007

Here is the excerpt of a blog entry posted on the Adam Smith Institute Blog about the benefits of genetically modified foods.

Excerpt…

In a brilliant breakthrough, Tokyo University researchers have modified a rice strain so that it vaccinates against cholera. It can be orally administered – you just eat the rice. It's cheap to mass produce, can be stored at room temperature for over a year, and is completely safe. Since cholera kills millions, mostly children, each year, this GM rice vaccine will be a godsend. Once it has been swallowed, the rice's protein body protects the vaccine from the body's digestive enzymes.…

Full article at Adam Smith Institute Blog.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:21 AM | Permalink

GMOPundit
David Tribe
June 14, 2007

Excerpt…

Statement of
Leonard Gianessi
Senior Research Associate, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Panel on Bt Plant Pesticides: Risk and Benefit Assessments
October 20, 2000

My name is Leonard P. Gianessi. I’m a Senior Research Associate at the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), a private non-profit research group here in Washington.

In July 1999, my colleague Janet Carpenter and I released a national assessment of the aggregate benefits of the planting of Bt corn, cotton and potatoes in the U.S. We are pleased to see that EPA was able to use our report in its analysis of the benefits of the Bt crops.

I’ll comment briefly on some differences in methodology between the EPA report and ours and offer some suggestions for improving the methodology.

One benefit measure that EPA does not include in its report is a measure of the increase in production that has occurred as a result of planting Bt crops. We estimate that the U.S. produced an extra 60 million bushels (or 4 billion pounds) of corn in 1998 by planting Bt corn and preventing damage from the European corn borer. That is the equivalent of 450,000 acres of corn that would have been destroyed by the corn borer, and this took place in a year with relatively light infestation (1998). Cotton growers produced an extra 85 million pounds of cotton as a result of planting Bt cotton to control insect pests.

EPA found the same problem that we did in estimating the impact of Bt corn on insecticide use. There was not a lot of spraying for the European corn borer before the introduction of Bt corn, and there is no a clear-cut set of pesticides that can be attributed solely to European corn borer control. EPA estimates, as we do, that the use of the insecticides recommended for European corn borer control went down, but these insecticides are used for other pests, as well. We come out at pretty much the same place – a modest reduction in corn acres treated with insecticides, perhaps 1 or 2% of 80 million acres. I suggest that EPA consider an alternative way of estimating the impact of Bt corn on insecticide use. That would be to estimate the increase in insecticide use if Bt corn registration were to be cancelled. Bt corn is being planted on 20% of the corn acres. Growers were not spraying 20% of the acres for European corn borer control; they were spraying only 5 to 8%. If Bt corn were to be taken away from U.S. farmers, the use of insecticides would rise significantly above the 1 or 2% reduction that occurred. For the first time, growers are using an effective control. They are seeing the value of controlling the pest, and without Bt corn, they are likely to spray 18 to 20% of the acres. I think that EPA could conduct such a simulation and estimate the potential increase that would occur. That is another way of estimating benefits – estimating what would happen if it were taken away….

Read full article at GMOPundit.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:15 AM | Permalink

BioSpectrum (India)
Srinivas Rao
June 14, 2007

Here is the excerpt from an article published in BioSpectrum on BIO 2007, a convention where experts gathered to discuss the latest efforts in all areas of biotechnology, including agricultural biotechnology.

Excerpt…

BIO 2007 International Convention reflects stable and stronger image for biotech.

This year's annual BIO International Convention, held during May 6-9, 2007, surpassed all the records. The BIO International Convention, produced by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), drew a record 22,366 attendees. With representatives from 48 states and 64 countries, the number of attendees saw almost a 15 percent increase compared to that during the previous year's BIO in Chicago. One-third of attendees came from outside the United States.

This year's theme was "New Ideas, Bold Ventures, Global Benefits". This perspective was symbolized by a large globe, about 20-25 feet in diameter, at the entrance of the conference center to highlight biotech efforts in areas around the world. "The host cities generally desire to be recognized as major biotech hubs. But this conference has taken a much broader view, since Boston doesn't really need anything to prove," said BIO president and CEO Jim Greenwood. Boston area is home to two of the world's largest biotechs--Genzyme and Biogen Idec.

"The 2007 BIO International Convention was a phenomenal success. With nearly 30 percent of our attendees coming from outside of the United States and pavilions from 39 countries or geographic regions, it truly was the global event for biotechnology," added Jim Greenwood.

Further, the BIO Exhibition featured the largest gathering of biotech exhibitors in history, with more than 1,900 companies and 60 domestic, country and regional pavilions representing every aspect of the biotechnology industry.

The BIO Business Forum also set records for attendance and partnering meetings. More than 6,000 attendees representing 1,503 companies participated in the Forum and held 12,103 partnering meetings….

Full article at BioSpectrum.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:59 AM | Permalink

GMOPundit
David Tribe
June 13, 2007

Excerpt…

Today the Australian gene technology regulator (OGTR) announced approval of field trials of drought-tolerant GM wheat varieties.

It will a mixed blessing for the trials if we have a very wet winter growing season, but I don't expect farmers will complain if we get lots of rain.

Update Jun 15 2007

The Age Letters June 15, 2007

BOB Phelps asserts that the benefits of GM crops are empty promises (Opinion, 12/6). Before Age readers take his story at face value, they should remember that we live in a drought-prone country.

Australians need to weigh carefully the potential for gene technology to protect crops against drought and provide ways of using water more efficiently. Phelps gives the wrong impression that this is simply a pie-in-the-sky dream.

Drought tolerance from GM crops is a field-trial reality, backed up by more than 300 registered trials of such crops in the US going back over the past eight years or so. The Dow Jones news service recently reported that drought-tolerant maize can give about 9 per cent better cereal yields under water stress conditions in such trials.

Phelps disingenuously claims that no drought-tolerant GM crops have been commercialised or trialled in Australia, but what he doesn't say is that there are field trials for water-efficient cotton, water-efficient sugar cane and drought-tolerant wheat either under way or recently approved by our national gene technology national regulator.

There is an extremely high future cost to slamming the door now on these welcome results of crop innovation. If shut, the door will be shut for years, because breeding and testing new crop varieties to suit local conditions takes years. Meanwhile, with a door shut here, our trade competitors in North and South America would be taking all the advantages. Most likely, Australian farmers will suffer badly for years to come from the vagaries of climate change if we make the wrong decision now.

David Tribe, department of microbiology and immunology, University of Melbourne

To continue after that introduction to the topicality of drought resistance in crops, let's do a stock take of progress in breeding protection against water stress (but not forget that hybrids and conventional traits such as those offered by hybrid maize and and GM hybrid canola also offer more crop resilience).

Bob Phlps and a few others ( eg Tammy Lobato) seem to think that the remedies offered by GM technology are trivial and that these approachs are nowhere near practical realisation. There's actually hundreds of such water use improvement field trials and they go back to the late 90s…

Read full article at GMOPundit.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:07 AM | Permalink

The Truth About Trade Technology
Robert Pore
June 13, 2007

Excerpt…

Nebraska is one of the nation's leading states using genetically modified (GM) crops. Now new research has found that GM crops may contribute to increased productivity in sustainable agriculture.

Last year, Nebraska farmers planted more than 10 million acres of GM corn and soybeans.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 90 percent of the state's 4.6 million acres of soybeans was GM varieties and 76 percent of Nebraska's 8.4 million acres of corn planted was GM varieties.

The study, conducted by scientists at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara, along with The Nature Conservancy and Santa Clara University, analyzed for the first time environmental impact data from field experiments all over the world, involving corn and cotton plants with a Bt gene inserted for its insecticidal properties.

What makes this research different is that it looks at effects genetically modified plants have on other nonmodified species.

This could help answer concerns about biotechnology and genetic engineering involving human health and biodiversity.

According to analysis of 42 field experiments, scientists found that GM varieties that produce an insecticide internally provide an environmental benefit because large-scale insecticide spraying can be avoided.

The research also found that organisms such as ladybird beetles, earthworms and bees in locales with Bt crops fared better in field trials than those within locales treated with chemical insecticides.

"This is a groundbreaking study and the first of its kind to evaluate the current science surrounding genetically modified crops," said Peter Kareiva, chief scientist of The Nature Conservancy. "The results are significant for how we think about technology and the future of sustainable agriculture."

One of the questions that the research sought to answer was how Bt crops impact beneficial insects and worms.

According to the lead author, Michele Marvier of Santa Clara University, the answer is that it depends to a large degree upon the type of comparison one makes.

"When Bt crops are compared to crops sprayed with insecticides, the Bt crops come out looking quite good," Marvier said. "But when Bt crops are compared to crops without insecticides, there are reductions of certain animal groups that warrant further investigation."

Marvier said the advantages or disadvantages of GM crops depend on the specific goals and vision for agroecosystems….

Full article at The Truth About Trade Technology.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:52 AM | Permalink

The Tide Online
June 12, 2007

Excerpt…

The Israeli Head of Mission in Nigeria, Mr Yari Frommer, has called for the introduction of biotechnology in Nigeria’s agricultural system.

Frommer told our correspondent yesterday in Abuja that only modern technology could assist the nation to achieve food security and increased food production.

He said biotechnology was a new system in human development that could have a great impact in the agricultural sector.

“It will be a success story in Nigeria because any technology that is being tested globally and approved as suitable for humans can be applied in any part of the world.

“Nigeria’s case should not be different and I hope the country will not be left behind in the scheme of events,” Frommer said….

Full article at The Tide Online.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:13 PM | Permalink

Desertification Blog
David Dickson, Director, SciDev.Net
June 12, 2007

Excerpt…

Building public support for genetically modified crops in sub-Saharan Africa means developing a homegrown solution to the region’s own needs.

This week representatives from African countries will gather in Johannesburg, South Africa, for Agricultural Science Week. Many will be asking how their governments can respond to the pressure from large parts of their agricultural communities to commercialise genetically modified (GM) crops on one side, and the large sectors of their voting publics against GM on the other. At one level, the decision seems straightforward. Scientific achievements in GM plant breeding over the past two decades have produced a range of new crops that can increase farmers’ productivity while reducing their production costs — for example, by substantially lessening the needs for fertilisers and insecticides. But at the same time, GM technology has not been around long enough for all its side effects to be understood. For critics of the technology, the worrying possibilities of what might happen were the technology to get out of control — however remote — is sufficient reason to halt development until more is known. Put in these terms, the political challenge is familiar. A new technology needs an effective regulatory regime that allows its potential to be harnessed safely, while potential side effects are closely monitored.

Indeed, as highlighted in our regional spotlight on agricultural technology published this week, implementing such biosafety regimes is now a priority across Africa (see Agri-biotech in sub-Saharan Africa).

A groundswell of opposition

But if the challenge is familiar, why has it taken so long to put solutions into place? Partly this is because scientific uncertainty remains over what the side effects are likely to be. But, more importantly, a groundswell of opposition from vocal critics has exploited this uncertainty to place governments on the defensive, reluctant to move forward for fear of alienating voters.

Such opposition needs to be taken seriously. One response is to demonstrate that governments are adequately informed about the potential risks of GM technologies before making decisions on biosafety regulations. Here the scientific community — both individual scientists and institutions such as scientific academies — can help.

Governments must also ensure that their electorates are sufficiently informed about both the potential benefits and risks of GM technologies. Information campaigns — in which journalists have a role to play through sound reporting — will not necessarily endorse GM crops. They will, however, increase the chances that political decisions come out of scientifically-based arguments, rather than unfounded speculation.

A political agenda?

Yet as European governments have discovered, neither a pledge to evidence-based decision making, nor the organisation of campaigns promoting public understanding of biotechnology are sufficient. Both ignore the extent to which many critics have a political agenda — namely a desire to oppose not so much GM technology itself but the multinational corporations promoting it.

To this, there is no straightforward reply. The critics legitimately argue that corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta control many key GM technologies. Such corporations’ primary loyalty is to their shareholders, not their customers.

But a large proportion of work on GM crops also comes from the public sector, through international agricultural research centres, for example.

Still, this has done little to soothe the public perception — which some politicians have been quick to seize on — that commercialising GM crops in a country opens up its farmers to exploitation by foreign interests.

A homegrown industry

There is only one appropriate long-term response to this argument. African countries — like others in the developing world — must develop the scientific and technological capacity to ensure that biotechnology meets their own needs, on their own terms…

Full article at Desertification Blog.

Posted by AC Baumer at 1:04 AM | Permalink

Agbios
Dean Kleckner
The Truth About Trade Publication
June 11, 2007

Excerpt…

Last week, Scientific American observed that “Genetically modified (GM) crops have spread faster in the past decade than any agricultural technology since the plow.”

That’s a clever way of putting it, but the statement should have been made stronger: GM crops have spread even faster.

The earliest ox-pulled plow was probably invented in Mesopotamia about 8,000 years ago. Centuries would pass before people in other parts of the world would adopt the fundamentals of this technology. Centuries more would pass before it would be improved upon.

GM crops, by contrast, needed only ten years between their commercial introduction and their one-billion-acre milestone in 2005. And they’re getting better all the time, as the Beatles put it roughly forty years ago today.

I don’t want to take anything away from the good old plow, but let’s face it: GM crops are to the plow what wireless email devices are to cuneiform writing on clay tablets.

Two years ago (early May 2005), when Truth About Trade & Technology officially announced that a farmer somewhere in the northern hemisphere had planted the one-billionth acre of GM crops, I predicted that it would only take five years before a farmer planted the two-billionth acre.

It turns out that this prediction wasn’t optimistic enough: A few weeks ago, we passed the 1.5-billion-acre mark. (Visit truthabouttrade.org to see a real-time counter, based on a continuous study of global farming statistics.) If current trends hold--12-million acres of GM crop plantings per week this planting season--we’ll hit two billion acres in a couple more years.

We’ll hit it even faster than that when China starts commercial planting of biotech rice--something that hasn’t happened yet, but which is all but certain to take place at a point in the not-too-distant future.

At some point, we’ll just quit counting acres. Remember when McDonald’s counted its customers on its store signs, beneath the golden arches? Then the signs just started saying, “Billions and Billions Served.” The same thing will happen with GM crops.

In a certain sense, GM crops already have served billions and billions because acres possibly aren’t the best unit of measurement. Better to think of it the way McDonald’s does, in terms of meals served. According to one estimate, North Americans alone have consumed more than a trillion servings of food with genetically enhanced ingredients.

Maybe farmers should start posting signs beside their GM corn and soybean fields: “Trillions and Trillions Served.”

The bottom line is that biotech food is about as exotic as a plow. It’s downright conventional….

Full article at Agbios.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:25 PM | Permalink

The Boston Globe
Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer
June 11, 2007

Here is the excerpt from an article in The Boston Globe on plant biotechnology.

Excerpt…

WASHINGTON --A team of Japanese researchers has developed a type of rice that can carry a vaccine for cholera, a step that could one day ease delivery of vaccines in developing countries.

While it's only the latest of several plants being tested as potential means of producing vaccines, the development is potentially important in medically underserved countries that lack refrigeration to store regular vaccines.

But the work is preliminary, having been tested only in mice.

The team, led by Hiroshi Kiyono of the division of mucosal immunology at the University of Tokyo, reports the development of the new vaccine in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A major advantage of this approach, they said, it that it causes immune reactions both systemwide in the body and in mucosal tissues such as in the mouth, nose and genital tract.

Standard vaccines delivered by needle do not spur immune responses in the mucosal areas.

That means the new vaccine could have an advantage against pathogens that typically infect these membranes, such as cholera, E. coli, human immunodeficiency virus, influenza virus and the SARS virus.

Attempts to alter plants to produce proteins that induce an immune reaction to various diseases have been under way for years, but none has reached the state where it could be used in humans.

"This has not progressed to the degree that we had hoped it would by this time," said Hugh S. Mason, a researcher at Arizona State University who has worked on several lines of plant vaccine study.

Mason cautioned that getting a good response to orally delivered material can be tricky in the harsh environment of the digestive system.

"We're going to have to work on ways to protect it from degradation of the stomach and then release it lower down in the gut so it can be taken up," he said.

In 1998 he published a paper on modifying potatoes to produce a vaccine for Norwalk virus. But he said in a telephone interview last week that "was a relatively preliminary study."…

Full article at The Boston Globe.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:38 AM | Permalink

NutralIngredients.com
Stephen Daniells
June 11, 2007

Excerpt…

11/06/2007 - A new technique could result in better nutritional and safety profiles for the coming generation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Spanish scientists have reported.

The invention, published in the American Chemical Society's journal Analytical Chemistry, analyses the potential changes in the composition of amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) in transgenic crops.

The new technique should be welcomed by both industry and consumers alike, particularly in the GM-sceptic European Union, since it has the potential to improve the nutritional and safety profiling of the crops and show how transgenic organisms may match or differ from their conventional counterparts.

Focusing on the chemical structure of the amino acids, lead author Miguel Herrero and co-workers from Spain's Institute of Industrial Fermentations (CSIC) in Madrid used the technique to measure the presence of "L" or "D" forms of the amino acid, which may affect nutritional quality and digestibility.

The L/D system is a way of explaining the spatial configuration of amino acids. The compounds are non-superimposable mirror images of each other; in the same way as one's left hand is the same but opposite of one's right hand. Each form has different properties, with D-amino acids, for example, appeared to be involved with ageing and disease in humans.

"The analysis of chiral amino acids in transgenic foods demonstrated for the first time in the present work, apart from having interesting nutritional and safety implications, can be used as an additional indicator for assessing the existence (or not) of unexpected modifications in other metabolic pathways linked to the amino acids profile within a GMO," wrote the researchers.

The researchers combined micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC) with a chiral selector and laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) to investigate the prevalence of L- and D-amino acids in conventional and transgenic (Bt) maize varieties.

Herrero and co-workers report that the technique was able to separate the amino acids in less than 25 min, and found that the conventional maize varieties showed different profiles for the L- and D-amino acids, said to reflect the variability expected from nature.

Comparison with the corresponding transgenic varieties and found no significant difference in the amino-acid profiles.

"This result seems to indicate that, in these maize samples, the new inserted Cry1Ab transgene has not modified any metabolic pathway linked to the detected amino acids, which seems to add a further proof about the safety equivalence of these samples," said the researchers….

Full article at NutralIngredients.com.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:24 AM | Permalink

Not Exactly Rocket Science
Ed Yong
June 11, 2007

Excerpt…

A large study weighs up the existing evidence on the impact of GM crops on local insect life, providing some much-needed scientific rigour to the GM debate.

In Europe, the ‘GM debate‘ about the merits and dangers of genetically-modified (GM) crops is a particularly heated one. There is a sense of unease about the power of modern genetic technology, and a gut feeling that scientists are ‘playing God’. These discontents are stoked by the anti-GM camp, who describe GM crops with laden and fear-mongering bits of unspeak like ‘Frankenstein foods’ and ‘unnatural’.

In a debate so fuelled by emotion and personal values, scientific research and a critical analysis of the evidence rarely gets a look-in. But science has to grudgingly admit some blame in this, because there is actually precious little research on the safety of GM crops. And many of the studies that have been done were short-term and poorly replicated.

A lack of research is dangerous. It provides opening for people on either side of the debate to quote single, small studies as canon and brushing aside any research that contrasts with their stances.

Adding evidence to the debate

Michelle Marvier and colleagues from Santa Clara University, California, are trying to change all that. They have analysed over 42 field experiments on GM crops to get an overall picture about their safety. The technique they used is called meta-analysis, a statistical tool that asks “What does everyone think?” It works on the basis that individual small studies may be far from conclusive, but pooling their results together can lead to stronger and more accurate results.

They looked at three strains of GM-crops that had been modified with genes from a soil-dwelling bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis. The transferred genes are responsible for producing a number of biological (and therefore ‘natural’) insecticides. When moving them across to plants, geneticists typically try to match the insecticide to the pest they are trying to fight. (In the image on the right, Bt-peanut leaves are protected from the damaging European corn borer)

The toxins are delivered at high dosages to pests, but are restricted to the plant (and sometimes even to particular tissues). They can also be added to the chloroplast genome, which is quite separate form the plant’s nuclear DNA. This stops them from being transferred to other plants.

The hope is that these so-called ‘Bt crops’ can help to minimise the collateral damage of less targeted insecticide sprays. In theory, only pest insects that eat valued crops are killed, while the rest of the ecosystem is unharmed….

Full article at Not Exactly Rocket Science.

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:49 AM | Permalink

People’s Daily Online
June 8, 2007

Excerpt…

Genetically modified (GM) crops may contribute to increased productivity in sustainable agriculture, according to a groundbreaking study published in the June 8 issue of the journal Science.

The study analyzes, for the first time, environmental impact data from field experiments all over the world, involving corn and cotton plants with a Bt gene inserted for its insecticidal properties.

The research was conducted by scientists from University of California, Santa Barbara, The Nature Conservancy, and Santa Clara University.

Biotechnology and genetic engineering are controversial because of concerns about risks to human health and biodiversity, but few analyses exist that reveal the actual effects genetically modified plants have on other non-modified species.

In an analysis of 42 field experiments, scientists found that this particular modification, which causes the plant to produce an insecticide internally, can have an environmental benefit because large-scale insecticide spraying can be avoided.

Organisms such as ladybird beetles, earthworms, and bees in locales with "Bt crops" fared better in field trials than those within locales treated with chemical insecticides.

According to lead author, Michele Marvier, of Santa Clara University, "we can now answer the question: Do Bt crops have effects on beneficial insects and worms." The answer is that it depends to a large degree upon the type of comparison one makes….

Full article at People’s Daily Online.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:18 PM | Permalink

Michelle Marvier,¹ Chanel McCreedy,¹ James Regetz,² Peter Kareiva1,³

Science Mag 8 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 - 1477
DOI: 10.1126/science.1139208

Excerpt…

A new study related to GM crops was released June 8, 2007. The following is part of the abstract….

Although scores of experiments have examined the ecological consequences of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops, debates continue regarding the nontarget impacts of this technology. Quantitative reviews of existing studies are crucial for better gauging risks and improving future risk assessments.…. A meta-analysis of 42 field experiments indicates that nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with insecticides. However, in comparison with insecticide-free control fields, certain nontarget taxa are less abundant in Bt fields.

¹ Environmental Studies Institute, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA.
² National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), University of California at Santa Barbara, 735 State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA.
³ The Nature Conservancy, 4722 Latona Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105, USA.

Full text at Science Mag.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:04 PM | Permalink

Express India
June 8, 2007

Experts met June 7, 2007, at a workshop on agricultural biotechnology held at Chandigarth Press Club…

Excerpt…

Chandigarh, June 7: AT a stage when agriculture growth has come down from 4 to 2.6 per cent, experts say a lot is in store when it comes to genetically modified (GM) products. Apples that could fight tooth cavity, nicotine-free coffee, plant-based edible vaccines, Vitamin A-enriched golden rice, genetically modified tomatoes with much longer shelf life et al is the future, said R G Saini, a senior Geneticist from Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), Ludhiana, at a workshop on agriculture biotechnology held at Chandigarh Press Club today.

He said many of these products, which will eventually make living healthier, were in the trial stage globally and would take time before they can be finally consumed.

Golden rice, which is a modification of maize gene and rice, will have enriched Vitamin A to prevent eye disorder, especially among children, said Dr S R Rao, Advisor Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. He added that golden rice was in its trial stage and is likely to be ready by 2013. “Nearly 2 per cent of children suffer from sub-clinical symptoms of eye disorder largely because of deficiency of Vitamin A. Golden rice could be a natural way to prevent this disorder,” Dr Rao said.

The media workshop was jointly organised by Punjab State Council for Science and Technology, Union Ministry of Environment and Forest, International Service for Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application (ISAAA) and Chandigarh Press Club.

Dr Rao said, “Globally, even in some state-run laboratories in India, trials are also on for genetically modified brinjals, tomatoes, iron enriched maize, wheat et al.”

R G Saini said India is currently ranked fifth in the world in use of GM crop with 3.8 million hectares area under BT cotton, the only commercially-used GM product in the country. “The US, which tops the list, produces GM soya, maize, papaya and squash. As many as 20 different GM food including watermelon, sunflower, sugarcane are in the experimental stage,” he said, adding that Maharastra tops GM produce in India….

Full article at Express India.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:03 AM | Permalink

National Geographic News
Amitabh Avasthi
June 7, 2007

Excerpt…

A type of genetically modified (GM) crop that resists pests may be a better alternative to farming with insecticides, a new report says.

These crops contain a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a common bacterium found in soil.

The gene helps the plants produce proteins that are toxic to certain insects. Some Bt crops are designed to only kill caterpillars, others to only kill beetles. (Learn how scientists insert genes into plant and animal DNA.)

The Bt crops did not seem to kill all the insects that come into contact with them, whereas insecticides do.

"Insecticides generally have a broad spectrum, and they kill lots of different types of insects, not just the pests," said study author Michelle Marvier of Santa Clara University in California. Bt crops, Marvier said, are much more specific in their action.

"Ideally, it would be best to see a reduction in the target pest species, but not much of a reduction in the other species that live on and around farms," Marvier said.

However, Marvier and colleagues caution that the study looked only at corn and cotton and that the findings may not apply to all GM crops.

The Good Guys

Researchers point out that most studies by industry, which are submitted to government agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have been poorly replicated and therefore might have missed important side effects of the GM crops.

So Marvier and her colleagues, who are not associated with the U.S. government or industry, analyzed the results of 42 field trials to discover the effect of Bt crops on "nontarget pests"—the insects not harmful to crops.

"The nontarget invertebrates are the 'good guys,'" Marvier said.

"These are the honeybees, the earthworms, the ladybird beetles, and so on. They may also include some plant-feeding insects, but even these are not the ones that Bt is meant to kill."

Their results suggest that, for the most part, Bt crops have less of an effect on ladybird beetles, earthworms, and honey bees than do insecticide sprays.

However, when the Bt crops were compared to similar non-Bt crops that had not been sprayed with insecticide, some of the nontarget insects were less abundant in fields of Bt crops.

LaReesa Wolfenbarger is a research biologist at the University of Nebraska at Omaha who was not involved in the study.

The meta-analysis—a review of several studies that appears tomorrow in the journal Science—may make the findings more credible than a single study, she said.

But Wolfenbarger cautioned that the effects of Bt crops on nontarget organisms depend on agricultural practices, such as the use or nonuse of insecticide in addition to Bt.

Insecticides may or may not be applied when growing corn or cotton, the study noted.

"I find this to be a very important point—namely that the agricultural practices associated with the crops greatly influence the ecological impacts," Wolfenbarger added….

Full article at National Geographic News.

Posted by AC Baumer at 12:24 PM | Permalink

All About Feed
June 6, 2007

A recent BIO Convention was held in Boston to discuss the latest in agricultural biotechnology and its potential to supply fuel and animal feed as well as more nutritious foods.

Excerpt…

The recent 2007 Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) International Convention held in Boston drew a record 22,366 attendees, a nearly 15% increase from the previous year. The convention is the world’s largest event for the biotechnology industry.

In reality, biotechnology not only is "transgenic", but also encompasses advances in genomics, bioinformatics, and molecular biology.

The bio industry needs to communicate the fact that more precise information about the genetic makeup of plants and animals (as well as plant and animal pests) can be used in non-transgenic ways to make better food, fuel, and fibre.

Information technology

"The convergence of information technology and molecular biology dramatically increases agriculture’s potential to supply fuel and animal feed as well as more nutritious food," said Sano Shimoda, president of California-based BioScience Securities.

Ray Riley, global head of corn and soybean product development for Syngenta, pointed out that agriculture based IT, such as gene sequencing and molecular markers technology, is increasingly becoming focused on consumer attributes "rather than just production by the pound."

Cellulosic ethanol on edge of breakthrough

Use of specialized enzymes for generating biofuels can reduce or replace harsh chemicals that contaminate the environment and make the process more productive and efficient.

In addition, new 'no cook' enzymes extract the sugars in corn at room temperature, greatly reducing energy inputs and improving the cost and environmental profile of ethanol made from corn starch.

These advances in enzyme technology and microbial fermentation have increased the efficiency of corn ethanol production by 20%.

Development of ethanol production from cellulosic biomass (such as corn stalks, wheat straw, or switchgrass) is also on the cusp of commercial production, due to dramatic advances in the development of cellulase enzymes….

The 2008 BIO International Convention will be held June 17-20 in San Diego, California.

Full article at All About Feed.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:09 AM | Permalink

The Monitor (Kampala)
Lilliane Barenzi
June 5, 2007

Excerpt…

Agricultural biotechnology is being put forward as a cost- effective solution to the problem of malnutrition that plagues much of the African continent where hundreds of thousands of children die from or are adversely affected by nutrient-poor diets.

According to Wally Green, biotechnology promises a better future for all of us. In Africa, biotechnology has the capacity to bring about near instant solutions for problems like hunger, malnutrition and poverty, and South Africa, where Green is the Mosanto Biotechnology Regulatory Manager, is in a race to take advantage of the cutting edge science.

Agricultural biotechnology has become the focus for several countries across the continent, with governments in North, South, East, West and Central African countries making rapid progress towards creating policy environments in which biotechnology research can flourish.

The leader of the pack is no doubt South Africa, which is the eighth largest producer in the world of genetically modified (GM) maize and cotton. Maize, also known as mealies or corn, is a food staple for both humans and livestock in the country with a population of 57 million. But annually, drought and diseases like maize streak virus, cause massive crop losses exacerbating challenges of food safety and poverty reduction for the predominantly black African masses.

Monsanto is a leading producer and distributor of GM maize seed in SA, including a variety impregnated with a 'stack' gene to provide drought tolerance as well as pest resistance. However, the industry titan has been vilified by the anti-biotech movement, which has strong leanings towards the pro-organic food drive, for alleged crimes ranging from 'genetic pollution' to 'exploitation of poor farming communities'. Green maintains that, instead, the technology actually benefits farmers, citing huge savings in pesticides for one, and the fact that no expensive infrastructure is required.

"Genetically modified seed with the drought tolerance gene enhances productivity through the intensification of agriculture, rather than 'extensification' which means the use of more and more resources like land and irrigation."

This should be music to the ears of 'resource poor' farmers in South Africa and most of Africa where communities are held at ransom by the high-risk business of rain-fed farming. With increasingly alarming reports about desertification and climate change, proponents from both sides of the biotech divide can at least agree that poor farmers should be looking for more than divine intervention. While the powerful anti-biotech lobby has, inadvertently or not, provided a boost to the organic movement which espouses 'natural' farming practices from field to supermarket, agricultural researchers concede that a lot of the food consumed presently has never undergone such rigorous testing as GM foods, and nobody can claim for sure that everything passed under the 'natural' label is in fact safe.

One case in particular points at modern rice hybrids that are produced and consumed worldwide, having been 'engineered' by a process called Gamma Ray Mutation which involves the use of irradiation in the creation of the hybrid.

The 'mutant' hybrids have been part of the human diet for decades and have never been tested for harmful effects in the medium or long term.

An article in The Economist (2005) says today scientists use thermal neutrons, X-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical--anything that will damage DNA--to generate mutant cereals.

Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of "mutation breeding". No safety tests are done; nobody protests. On the other hand, GM foods are highly regulated and subjected to rigorous testing and have to be heavily labeled before going onto the market, conditions which according to Green, "are meant to slow down the technology".

Agricultural biotechnology is being put forward as a cost-effective solution to the problem of malnutrition that plagues much of the African continent where hundreds of thousands of children die from or are adversely affected by nutrient-poor diets. Food enhancement is possible with biotechnology, as crops like soya, rice, maize and potato have successfully been modified to provide increased enrichment in vital nutrients such as protein and vitamins.

"This food is as safe or even safer than conventional food because it is thoroughly tested," Green says. The organic movement, which has friends in anti-globalisation and anti-multinationals, has been quick to play up the risks of eating 'mutant', 'frankenstein' foods, but for many of the world's poor, starvation is a much worse fate.

Ironically, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa is reported to have said he "would rather let his people starve than eat anything 'toxic", even as he rejected food aid from the USA in 2004. At various biotechnology meetings in Pretoria, SA, in March 2007, a delegation of Ugandan researchers and policymakers examined evidence of the host country's rapid and steadfast adoption of biotechnology, specifically agricultural biotechnology.

South Africa is the only African country producing GM crops commercially and is among a few countries worldwide recording the fastest growth in the number of hectares under GM crops. In a tour organised by Africa Bio, an independent, non-profit biotechnology stakeholders association, the Ugandan delegation visited regulatory offices, laboratories, learning institutions as well as large and smallholder farms to familiarise themselves with biotechnology practice and legislation….

Full article at The Monitor.

Posted by AC Baumer at 11:50 AM | Permalink

SeedQuest
Krishna Ramanujan
Ithaca, New York
June 1, 2007

Here’s a great article on the benefits of genetically modified foods – providing more nutritious staple crops such as cauliflower, maize, rice, potatoes, and bananas.

Excerpt…

While orange cauliflower may seem unappealing to some, it has distinct nutritional advantages. Now, Cornell University researchers have identified the genetic mutation behind the unusual hue. The finding may lead to more nutritious staple crops, including maize, potato, rice, sorghum and wheat.

The genetic mutation recently isolated by Cornell plant geneticist Li Li and colleagues -- and described in the December issue of The Plant Cell -- allows the vegetable to hold more beta-carotene, which causes the orange color and is a precursor to the essential nutrient vitamin A. While cauliflower and many staple crops have the ability to synthesize beta-carotene, they are limited partially because they lack a "metabolic sink," or a place to store the compound.

Developing staple crops with more vitamin A is important because vitamin A deficiency, common in developing countries, leads to compromised immune systems and is the leading cause of blindness in children.

"A large percentage of the human population depends on staple crops for nutrition," said Li, an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics and a scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory at Cornell. "The research provides a possible new technique for genetically modifying staple crops to increase their ability to store beta-carotene and increase nutritional content in staple crops."

Other researchers have created "golden rice" by inserting several genes that increases the synthesis of beta-carotene. But this technique has proved less effective in many plants. Li's research, which increases a plant's ability to store beta-carotene, may offer an alternate and complementary technique for making staple crops more nutritious….

Full article at SeedQuest.

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:12 AM | Permalink

The Associated Press
June 1, 2007

Excerpt…

BERLIN: The German government on Friday approved several new types of genetically modified corn to be planted in six of the nation's 16 states, saying tests had shown the crops would posed no danger to humans or livestock.

Germany's Ministry for Consumer Protection said that Monsanto Co., headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, was allowed to plant the four types of corn in fields up to 5,000 square meters (about 54,000 square feet) in preapproved locations in the states of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania, Saxony Anhalt, Saxony, Hesse and Bavaria.

The crops have been altered to be resistant to certain worms.

The ministry ordered a 200-meter (650-feet) border of fallow land surrounding each field, in an effort to prevent cross-pollination with other, nearby crops….

Full article at The Associated Press.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:47 AM | Permalink