GMO Food for Thought

Trendy Science
Helen Pickersgill
August 30, 2007

Genes make you what you are. All living things have them (humans have about 25,000) and they're like blueprints.

So when you're being made, you will get two arms and two legs, rather than wings and a beak. Stuff like that. Genetic modification means changing a gene so the organism does or has something different. It's practically impossible to do in humans and it's only attempted for the treatment of life-threatening diseases. In plants, however, it's much easier and has spawned the current era of genetically modified foods.

I think the reason most people are afraid of GM foods is because they aren't natural like the rest of the things we buy in the supermarket. Like microwave meals, meat and potato pies, and crisps for example. Jesting aside though, even normal fruit and vegetables aren't strictly 'natural'. It's not like the raspberries grew from a stray seed that blew on a gentle breeze into a small crevice and was nurtured by the sun and the rain. What people don't realise is that so-called natural produce has already been forced to change genetically over the years. It's a bit like Hitler's plan to make us all blonde haired and blue eyed, except much less controversial and thankfully far more successful. To do that you only let the blonde and blue eyed people breed. Same with the plants, only choose the ones that look the best and last the longest. These plants have been carefully cultivated for years in artificial environments to make them look as tempting as possible (at the expense of taste unfortunately). These new techniques of genetic engineering just make the process a lot more efficient. If a geneticist (don't be afraid - I know a few and they're charming people) can make my tomato taste like a tomato should, then I applaud them and have no qualms sticking them in my salad (the tomato not the geneticist obviously- scientists thankfully aren't that crazy).

The original GM crops were developed more for the farmers and the retail industries than to make a consumer's life happier and healthier. For instance, maize and rice have had genes added that make them cheaper and easier to grow. This brings me to another common concern over GM crops - the ability of plants to pass on genes to other plants, either directly, or indirectly via a plant pathogen. But this process is inefficient, and we aren't even sure if it's a significant threat and exactly what the outcome would be. It would be like the tomato passing on one of its genes, which makes it look, smell and taste like a tomato, to a potato planted next to it and the potato becoming a bit like a tomato. (Important note: humans cannot pick up genes into their own cells from a plant by eating it or standing next to it). The problems start when a plant is modified, for example, to cope with specific herbicides or insects. If these genes get released into the wild plant populations they will alter this delicate ecosystem, and it may not be able to cope. Worst-case scenario could be that we lose some species altogether and have some plants becoming dominant and growing uncontrollably. The stringent control of GM technologies is paramount to their safety and success, and there are numerous efforts to decrease these potentially devastating effects on the natural plant populations.

The future for GM is more geared towards us, by generating foods that are healthier and have improved quality and flavour. For example, increasing the vitamin content of fruit would massively improve health and the fight against heart disease and cancer. No more need for those vitamin supplements. And you might even find you enjoy eating them rather than considering it a chore to rack up 5 portions of fruit and veg a day, especially when chips don't count. No longer will we finish an orange feeling disappointed and cheated.

As a scientist, sometimes I have to revert to scientific talk, and therefore I cannot state that GM foods are completely risk-free to the consumer. By the same token, nor can I say that eating any food is risk free. Indeed, however harmless the humble apple might appear, it still contains hidden nasties like the cyanide in the pips (in very very low quantities). Genetic modification can pose additional risks to food safety because it's possible that other genes, besides those that you wanted to alter, have been changed too. But importantly, GM foods are tested far more rigorously than any other food you buy at the supermarket, including organic food, because of these potential risks. Health and safety regulations are so extensive that they are preventing many more GM products from making it to market, partly because they are consequently so expensive to produce. However, in reality, GM crops aren't really all that different from the conventionally bred crops. In both cases you are messing around with their genes, but at least with GM you do it in one step by adding a gene which you know the function of, rather than the more hit and miss method of conventional breeding. As long as the genes that have been changed are shown to be non-toxic to humans and not dangerous if released into the wild plant populations, then it's alright by me. Long term effects of eating GM foods awaits the passage of time, but people in the US have been eating GM products since 1993, and there have been no reported cases to date of them being harmful to people.

I think it's essential for everybody to stay open minded and involved in the GM food debate because the potential benefits are extensive. Of utmost importance is the development of this technology for feeding the millions of starving people in the world, which is far more important than putting cheap and tasty food on our plates. Scientists are currently working on developing crops that are less sensitive to extreme weather conditions such as drought or monsoons. But if we can't get past current legislation and address our fears and worries, the third world, who don't have the luxury of choice, are never going to benefit.

Personally I am very excited and positive about this technology. My only request would be to know how a product has been altered and why. Normally I like to know exactly what I'm eating - unless I'm getting a take-away and then I just shut my eyes and enjoy. At the end of the day I have this piece of advice. Whether they're modified or not, always wash your fruit and veggies well before you eat them. I learnt that one from my mum.

Source: Trendy Science

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:54 PM | Permalink

Classically Liberal
August 30, 2007

Greenpeace activists in Thailand recently tried a publicity stunt to emphasize the imaginary threat of genetically engineered papaya. They were upset, as usual, about an suggestion by the Agriculture ministry to allow open field testing of GM crops.

So the Greenpeace scare mongers decided to take some GM papaya, eleven tons of it, and dump it in front of the Ministry blocking three of their gates.

The protest ran into a problem. It didn’t last long. A large crowd of onlookers rushed the pile of fruit and started packing it up and carting it off thrilled at the “free lunch” that Greenpeace had inadvertently provided them. Even officials from the Ministry grabbed some of the free food, apparently unconcerned about any supposed danger.

Greenpeace activists who tried to convince the crowd of the fictional dangers of the fruit were ignored as the happy recipients of the unintended largess took all they could carry.

On man who was sitting in his car at a stop light jumped out of the car to stock up on fruit. He told the Bangkok Post: “I’m ot scared of GM papayas. I’m scared I won’t have any to eat.”
The head doomsday prophet for the Greenpeace cult, Thailand diocese, complained that the reason people carted off the supposedly dangerous fruit was the government’s fault. Ms. Natwipha Ewasakul whined that this proves “the failure of government agencies to educate people about the possible health risks of genetically-engineered crops.”

Oh! In related news Mr. I.M. Twit bitched that the prevalence of radio signals is proof that government has not sufficiently warned the public that such signals disturb the alien life force that keeps the planet in harmony. “Continued use of radio signals could unbalance the whole planet,” said Twit, “This would lead to the eradication of gravity and we’d all die of thirst as the rain would fall upwards.” Mr. Twit showed how umbrellas could be used to catch the rising water to stave off dehydration.

And now back to the real twits.

Here is an interesting legal problem for Greenpeace. They argue that GM papaya is dangerous. So I suggest that some one in Thailand, who ate this supposedly dangerous papaya, which Greenpeace publicly dumped in front of hungry people, now sue Greenpeace for a significant amount of damages. They could go to court with Greenpeace’s own scare propaganda as evidence that the fruit is supposedly dangerous and that Greenpeace put their live at risk.

Could Greenpeace then argue the fruit was not dangerous and that it posed no risk to the happy consumers blessed with this windfall? If Greenpeace contends in court that the fruit is as dangerous as they pretend then they should have taken much stronger precautions to prevent hungry people from eating the “dangerous” fruit. As I see it Greenpeace can either say the fruit was safe and thus they were not negligent. Or they can say that their propaganda is correct, the fruit is dangerous, and they were negligent in putting it on public display when it was highly likely that it would lead to people consuming the fruit.

So the Thai people who got that fruit appear to be in line for being very lucky again, if they follow this tactic. Not only did they get a free meal out of the witless Greenpeace twits but if they play their cards right they can now demand compensation from Greenpeace for putting their lives at risk through the negligent distribution of “dangerous” food products. Oh, that would be juicy. I don’t see how Greenpeace can win a situation like that. Either they admit they lie about dangers or they admit they took no precaution regarding the danger and put the public at risk. I hope the litigants ask for lots of damages.

Source: Classically Liberal

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:53 PM | Permalink

GMO Africa
August 30, 2007

Agricultural experts from across the world have congregated in Oslo, Norway, to discuss the future of Africa’s agriculture, including agricultural biotechnology. They are strategizing on how to kick-start the African Green Revolution. Being envisaged is an agricultural renaissance in Africa along the lines of Norman Borlaug’s 1950s Green Revolution, which transformed dozens of Asian and Latin American countries from paupers to food baskets.

I pray that the folks in Oslo exhaustively discuss every strategy that can make Africa’s agriculture shine. Africa needs to feed itself, but it wouldn’t succeed in this endeavor unless it abandons its antiquated farming methods.

Judging from the line-up of speakers attending the conference, good tidings abound. Norman Borlaug is attending, and this is good for Africa. A 1972 Nobel Peace Prize winner for his selfless efforts to feed the poor through innovative agricultural technologies such as crop genetic engineering, Borlaug is a man Africa must court at whatever cost. Borlaug never shy from reminding the world that modernizing agriculture is the surest way to enhance global food security.

In the ongoing debate about biotech agriculture, Borlaug has assumed an uncompromising position that Africa’s continued procrastination on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) endangers its own economic prosperity. African delegates attending this conference have a chance to hear from Borlaug what agricultural biotechnology is all about and how it can help farmers.

Then there’s Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Head of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Project. Like Borlaug, Sachs’ familiarity with Africa’s food problems and how they can be fixed is unrivaled. He has spoken fondly of integrating biotech agriculture into Africa’s agriculture. Sachs, a renowned agricultural economist, brings to the conference a wealth of experience in formulating agricultural policies for developing countries.

It is encouraging representatives of the recently formed Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are also attending this conference. Recently AGRA’s President, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, ruled out including genetically modified crops into its programs, a declaration that triggered uproar from the scientific community both in and outside Africa. AGRA’s interim Vice-President, Akinwumi Adesina, who’s in Oslo, might consider having tete-a-tete with Borlaug and Sachs on the issue. I, myself, have already advised AGRA against demonizing GM crops because, who knows, they might be part of the solution to Africa’s food problems.

Let the Oslo conference explore and discuss every possible solution to Africa’s food problems, including food biotechnology.

Source: GMO Africa

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:56 PM | Permalink

GMO Pundit
August 25, 2007

Biorefining of corn brings gelatin production into the 21st century
- American Chemical Society (press release), August 22, 2007

Here’s a great article from the American Chemical Society on plant biotechnology.

BOSTON - Scientists are reporting an advance toward turning corn plants into natural factories for producing gelatin to replace animal-sourced gelatin widely used by the pharmaceutical industry for manufacturing capsules and tablets. The advance, described today at the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, may lead to a safe, inexpensive source of this protein for manufacturers who now rely on material obtained as a by-product of meat production.

Today, production of gelatin, a jelly-like substance, relies on the same fundamental methodology employed since commercial production began in the 17th century: Gelatin is derived from the break-down of collagen, which is a component of skin, tendon, bone, cartilage and connective tissue of animals. While there are no naturally occurring plant sources of gelatin, scientists have successfully modified plants, such as corn, to have a gene that results in the production of "recombinant" gelatin.

About 55,000 tons of animal-sourced gelatin are used every year to produce capsules and tablets for medicinal purposes. Plant-derived recombinant gelatin would address concerns about the possible presence of infectious agents in animal by-products and the lack of traceability of the source of the raw materials currently used to make gelatin. However, finding ways to recover and purify recombinant gelatin from plants has remained a challenge because only very low levels accumulate at the early stages of the development process.

Now, scientists at Iowa State University in Ames and FibroGen, Inc., in South San Francisco say they have developed a purification process to recover these small quantities of recombinant gelatin present in the early generations of transgenic corn. The method uses a four-step recovery system to separate the recombinant protein from other corn proteins with sufficient purity that its structure and composition can be verified, says Charles Glatz, Ph.D., a chemical engineer at Iowa State University who directed the work.

"Protein production from transgenic plants is a challenging process, with potential pitfalls all along the way," Glatz says. "It is important to develop methods in the early stages of the development program to purify gelatin to demonstrate that it can be produced properly."

The studies establish transgenic corn as a viable way to produce gelatin and potentially other products, Glatz says. In time, researchers may also be able to develop a variety of "designer" gelatins, with specific molecular weights and properties tailored to suit various needs of products containing gelatin.

"Corn is an ideal production unit, because it can handle high volumes at a low cost," he says. In addition the recombinant gelatin is free from the safety concerns of using meat byproducts.

The purification process relies on chromatographic and filtration techniques, building upon methods developed by FibroGen to recover recombinant gelatin produced in yeast.

Glatz says ultrafiltration allowed the group to take advantage of the size difference between the recombinant protein and other corn proteins.

"This step greatly reduced the process volume for later chromatographic steps, and was crucial to achieving a high purification factor."

The group is now working to refine the method and boost the overall recombinant protein yields in corn, he says. Though the procedure requires more testing, Glatz says the technique could someday be used to produce high-grade gelatin in a safe and inexpensive manner.

Overall costs could be further reduced by combining the production of gelatin in corn with the extraction of non-protein parts of the grain - such as oils and starches - that are now grown and harvested for biodiesel and ethanol production, he adds.

"Corn wouldn't be planted for its gelatin alone, but those products could help off-set the cost of biorefineries that use corn to produce other products," he says.

Cheng Zhang, a doctoral student at Iowa State University, presented details of the new purification process at the American Chemical Society meeting.

Source: GMO Pundit.

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:01 PM | Permalink

Biotech Brasil
August 25, 2007

The National Director for the Chilean Agricultural Research Institute (INIA), Leopoldo Sanchez, and the Executive Director for the Forestry Research Institute (INFOR), Marta Abalos, presented on August 13 the project “Generation and production of drought tolerant eucalyptus plants”. The entities developed the plant variety with the objective of making available to forestry companies and farmers from the Chilean arid regions, trees that can better resist situations of water shortage. The activity carried out in the INFOR headquarters in the city of Concepcion, has the intention of meeting the current and future demand for raw materials of the wood industry and related sectors. Currently the 1.8 million hectares located in the arid regions of O’Higgins and Bio-Bio is not adequately explored due to the long drought periods.

Source: Biotech Brasil

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:05 PM | Permalink

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
August 25, 2007

The anti-agribiotech lobbies insist that the proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), in pest resistant transgenic crops are not safe to non-target organisms, ignoring a host of detailed scientific studies which have shown that these proteins are safe to non-target organisms.

The book ‘Bacillus thiringiensis: biology, ecology and safety’, published in 2000, refers to over 8,000 research publications, in over 60 years. It contains extensive data on the safety of diverse Bt proteins to non-target organisms.

The activists conveniently ignore that for Bt proteins to be toxic to any organism, a set of
physico-chemical and biological pre-requisites are essential. In the absence of the pre-requisites in a particular organism, Bt proteins are safe to that organism.

What blew up the issue out of proportion was the much-publicized study by Losey, et al.,
(1999) which indicated that transgenic Bt corn pollen might harm monarch butterfly larvae, a conclusion immediately questioned. Sears et al., (2001) re-examined the issue, avoiding the flaws in the experimental design in the earlier study and concluded that impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations was insignificant. But the activists paid this only a Nelson’s eye.

In spite of all the evidence that Bt proteins were not the cause for a) the death of farm animals in the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP) in India, and b) the collapse of bee colonies in the US and Europe, both the instances were much publicized in support of anti-GE activism. Recent developments, however, seem to vindicate the safety of Bt proteins.

1. Death of farm animals in AP

Anti-GE activists in AP have a pathological compulsion to attribute any untoward incident in the farm sector to Bt crops. Two years ago, Bt proteins in Bt cotton seeds were blamed for the death of 24 peacocks in AP, while the real cause was the pesticide Goucho, routinely used in seed dressing. Subsequently, numerous reports of sheep, goats and cattle dying allegedly on consuming Bt cotton plants in the Warangal, Khammam and Adilabad Districts of the Telengana area of AP (Deccan Herald, February 7, 2007; The Hindu, March 2, 2007; GM Watch, March 4, 2007; Hindustan Times, June 17, 2007; GM Watch, June 18, 2007; Hindustan Times, June 18, 2007), became a never dying story, raising the question ‘Why do cattle die eating Bt cotton plants only in the Telengana region of Andhra Pradesh?’.

The causes of death of cattle and sheep were analyzed on this blog earlier. Bt proteins were repeatedly established to be non-toxic to mammals on the basis of their mode of chemical action and experimental studies. Yet, the activists want the world to believe that Bt cotton plants cause these alleged animal deaths and so Bt transgenic crops should be banned.

Official vindication of Bt proteins in the farm animal death imbraglio in AP has now come. On August 17, 2007, the Minister for Environment and Forests, (MoEF) Government of India, cited an AP Government’s report and said that Bt cotton samples analyzed by four public sector laboratories contained high levels of nitrates, nitrites, hydrogen cyanide residues and organophosphates, which may be common constituents of soil or fertilizer or pesticides used in cotton cultivation, were the cause for farm animal deaths. The Minister reportedly said that ‘the MoEF had not received any scientific report attributing sheep mortality to grazing on Bt cotton fields per se’. Since the farmers use significantly lower quantities of insecticides on the Bt cotton crop, nitrates and nitrites are more likely to be the toxicants. The sources and symptoms of nitrate and pesticide poisoning were analyzed on this blog earlier.

2. Collapse of Honey Bee Colonies in the US and Europe

There has been a collapse of Honey Bee colonies in the US and Europe early this year, causing enormous losses. The anti-GE activists attributed this to the pollen of GE crops. While there are several GE crops in the US, it is absurd to attribute bee colony collapse to GE pollen in Europe and elsewhere, where there is a distinct lack of GM pollen in the environment.

Colony Collapse Disaster (CCD), the desertion and death of almost all the bees in a colony, occurs now and then, sometimes in epidemic proportions, in all countries. While several causes for CCD were identified, no specific reason or reliable remedies are known. Poisoning by agricultural chemicals, an unusually higher than normal winter damage and natural age dependent colony degeneration, are often confused with CCD.

Christian Evans analyzed in News Target (March 2007) the various possible causes for the bee colony disaster and concluded that the heavy chemical inputs in modern agricultural practices were responsible for the problem.

At a hearing of the US House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture on CCD on April 5, 2007, three experts testified that the pollen from GE crops was not one of the causes for the disaster. Nicotinoid pesticides, which may affect honey bee’s learning ability, may be one of them. The general impression at these hearings was that the problem was overblown from the level of normal over-winter losses.

Irish Times (April 06, 2007) attributed bee colony losses to either to the CCD or a new form of Varroa destructor, a mite that attacks bees, which was prevalent for the past four or five years in Ireland.

On April 15, 2007, Omega News raised the question if mobile phones are wiping out the bees, by scrambling their signals and the same was reiterated in June 2007, by The Independent (UK).

So far not even a single peer reviewed report has proved that the products of new genes in GE crops are harmful to honey bees, bumble bees or such other insect pollination vectors.

3. OECD consensus document

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, has released a peer reviewed consensus document (July 2007, Document No. 42) on the safety of transgenic Bt insecticidal proteins. This document does not show any serious adverse effects of Bt proteins on non-target organisms under normal field conditions of Bt crops, which is also the experience of a decade of cultivation of transgenic crops in different parts of the world.

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:45 PM | Permalink

GMO Pundit
AUSTRALIA: Oils ain’t oils – the benefits of GM oilseed crops
Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry
Press release.
August 24, 2007

Healthier oils, cheaper production costs and reduced environmental impacts may be within reach if genetically modified (GM) crops are adopted by the oilseed industry.

Releasing the Bureau of Rural Sciences report GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, said the adoption of gene technology could provide consumers with significant health benefits.

“Research is underway into the development of GM oilseed crops that produce healthier oils with better ratios of unsaturated fats, high levels of omega-3 oils normally sourced from fish and increased levels of essential amino acids and vitamins,” Mr McGauran said.

The world’s major oilseed crops are soybean, rapeseed (including canola), peanut, oil palm and sunflower. They are widely used in food, feed and industrial applications. Australia produces between two and three million tonnes of oilseeds each year, with canola and cottonseed being the major crops.

“Currently, GM cotton is the only approved GM oilseed crop to be commercially grown in Australia,” Mr McGauran said.

“Growing GM cotton is already proving to be both environmentally and economically beneficial to the cotton industry. Growing GM insect-resistant cotton significantly reduces the use of insecticides and production costs. Environmental and production benefits are also seen for GM canola varieties grown overseas.

“GM oilseeds also have the potential to cut production costs, increase product value and diversify the range of goods produced by the oilseed industry.

“With the acceptance of such GM oilseed varieties, Australia would successfully compete with GM canola and soybean varieties currently produced overseas.”

In Australia, all GM plants are assessed for risks to human health and safety and the environment and are regulated by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is responsible for carrying out safety assessments of GM foods to make certain they are safe for human consumption.

Copies of the report, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry can be downloaded from the BRS website.

Preferred way to cite this report:

Holtzapffel R., Johnson H. and Mewett O., 2007, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/367109/gm_oilseed_crop_report.pdf

Holtzapffel R., Johnson H. and Mewett O., (2007) , Foreword

Australia produces between 2 and 3 million tonnes of oilseeds each year, with canola and cottonseed being the major crops. These two crops account for 92% of Australia’s total oilseed production. The gross value of oilseed production averaged $766 million over the three years to 2005/06, around 7% of the total gross value of Australian grain production.

This report summarises the environmental, agronomic and economic benefits seen in Australia and overseas as a result of growing GM oilseed crops. It details the types of GM oilseed crops being grown or developed in Australia and overseas; and discusses the issues that were raised during consultations with the oilseed industry in Australia. The consultations identified a widespread belief that the Australian oilseed industry will struggle over the next five to ten years. One of the reasons identified for this was the adoption of GM crops in competitor countries. Other reasons are also discussed in this report. Access to GM technology was widely viewed as one option that could assist the oilseed industry to remain viable and competitive in the future.

Executive Summary

• Oilseed crops are important to Australian agriculture.
The world’s major oilseed crops are soybean, rapeseed (including canola), peanut, oil palm and sunflower. Australia produces between 2 and 3 million tonnes of oilseeds each year, with canola and cottonseed being the major crops. These two crops account for 92% of Australia’s total oilseed production with peanuts, soybeans and sunflower seeds accounting for the remaining 8%.

The gross value of oilseed production averaged around 7% of the total gross value of Australian broadacre crop production over the three years to 2005/06. Over the same period, Australian exports of oilseeds averaged around 8.5% of the total value of Australian exports of grain and oilseeds.

Some oilseeds also provide benefits to wheat and barley crops through their use in rotation cropping cycles.

• Oilseeds are widely used in food, feed and industrial applications…
Vegetable oils are widely consumed in our diets, including in margarines and processed and fried foods. Meal derived from oilseeds is an important source of protein in the stockfeed industry and vegetable oils are also used in the manufacture of soaps, industrial lubricants and paints.

• …and have been extensively modified to meet these needs.
Oilseeds have been selected over many generations to contain desirable fatty acids to suit their different uses. For example, canola was developed by selective breeding to contain low levels of anti-nutritional compounds. Other modifications have included breeding canola and sunflower varieties with high levels of monounsaturated fats to improve the frying quality of their oils.

Chemical modifications can also be made to purified vegetable oils to make margarines or to improve their stability for cooking and industrial purposes.

• Modifications are continuing to produce oilseeds that are easier and cheaper to grow…
The 2005 BRS report ‘What’s in the Pipeline?’ highlighted the significant amount of research currently being conducted on genetically modified (GM) oilseed crops. This includes a number of traits designed for easier, cheaper and more sustainable production (e.g. herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, increased yields). GM cotton varieties with herbicide tolerance and insect resistance have been widely adopted in Australia and provide benefits to the environment and farmers.

• …produce healthier oils…
A significant amount of research is also being directed into developing healthier oilseeds, particularly those which produce high levels of polyunsaturated or long chain omega-3 fatty acids; higher levels of essential amino acids and/or vitamins; or decreased allergenicity. These improvements and modifications are expected to provide health benefits for people throughout the world and to add value to oilseed crops. There are commercial drivers for this research due to public health policies recommending consumption of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, industry pressures to reduce processing costs and the increasing appeal of healthy foods for consumers.

• …and may produce pharmaceutical and industrial products in the future.
Research is also underway to produce oilseed crops designed to act as biofactories, producing pharmaceutical or industrial compounds instead of food, feed or fibre. Examples include pharmaceuticals (antibodies, vaccines or enzymes) and industrial compounds (biofuels, bioplastics, lubricant oils or enzymes). These developments are reviewed in more detail in the 2007 BRS report ‘Plant molecular farming in Australia and overseas’.

• GM oilseed crops that have been developed, or are in development, in Australia include herbicide tolerant and insect resistant cotton, and herbicide tolerant canola…
Combining a literature review and extensive consultations with representatives of the oilseed industry and State Government Agencies, BRS has identified a range of GM oilseed crops that are already in commercial production overseas or are under development in Australia and overseas.

In Australia, GM herbicide tolerant and insect resistant cotton varieties and GM herbicide tolerant canola have been approved for commercial release. Research is continuing into improving the fatty acid profiles (e.g. high oleic and/or low linolenic acid levels) and developing novel fatty acid compositions (e.g. long chain omega-3 fatty acids) for Australian oilseed crops.

• …while overseas GM cotton, canola and soybean have been commercialised.
Overseas countries have approved the commercial release of a number of GM oilseed crops, namely cotton, canola and soybean varieties incorporating herbicide tolerance, insect resistance or a combination of the two. Overseas researchers are developing oilseed crops with improved environmental stress tolerance, improved disease resistance, increased nitrogen use efficiency, increased seed size, reduced pod shatter, increased yield and increased oil content. Further research overseas is investigating ways in which to produce oilseed crops with altered fatty acid profiles or novel fatty acid composition, increased essential amino acid content (e.g. methionine and lysine), production of essential vitamin precursors (e.g. Vitamin A and E), increasing the nutritional value of stockfeed (e.g. by reducing anti-nutritional compounds such as phytic acid), and as expression platforms for pharmaceutical and industrial products (e.g. plant-made vaccines or bioplastics).

• Oilseeds play a vital role as rotational break crops for wheat and barley…
The stakeholder consultations highlighted the important place that oilseeds have in Australian agriculture. In particular, canola provides value as rotational break crops to our major crop exports: wheat and barley. Many people consulted were interested in the potential for lower production costs (first generation traits), higher value uses for oilseed crops such as specialty oils (second generation traits), or crops as biofactories (third generation traits) as potential ways to increase the value of oilseed crops. There was also a desire for public breeding programmes to continue to ensure that oilseed traits relevant to Australia are developed in the future.

• …and there are opportunities for expansion and diversification.
Canola and other oilseeds provide significant benefits to the Australian agricultural sector. A number of opportunities for expansion and diversification of the Australian oilseed industry have been identified, including: supplying increased quantities of local oilseed meal to the stockfeed industry; developing stable oils for frying that compete with palm and soybean oil imports; developing value-added oils such as long chain omega-3 fatty acids to supply a niche market for omega-3-containing oilseed crops; producing high volumes of oil for use in biodiesel production; and meeting the needs of niche markets for GM and non-GM oilseeds as they develop.

• Experience with GM oilseed crops in Australia and overseas show economic, environmental and agronomic benefits.

Experience with GM cotton crops in Australia and GM cotton and canola crops overseas has shown that there are benefits for farmers and the environment from growing these crops. For instance, in Australia the GM insect resistant cotton Bollgard II® led to an 85% reduction in insecticide use in comparison to conventional cotton over the first three seasons following its introduction in the 2002/03 season. The implementation of other Integrated Pest Management practices has also contributed to this reduction.

Results from studies overseas show net economic benefits for many farmers growing GM crops.
For GM cotton, the level of this benefit varies between countries and regions within countries due to differences in environmental and climatic conditions and in some countries, the way that GM crops are developed and sold.

In Canada, a number of agronomic benefits have been associated with the adoption of GM canola, including: improved yields; decreased herbicide use and increased weed management options; and increased ease in adopting minimum and no-till cultivation practices.

A study by the Canola Council of Canada released in 2005 indicated that Canadian canola farmers who chose to grow GM varieties were better off when compared to those who continued to cultivate conventional canola varieties. Canadian growers have not lost market share in their main export markets despite the majority of their canola crop being comprised of GM varieties. There is no evidence that GM canola is having difficulty finding ready markets throughout the world. No price premium on bulk non-GM canola shipments has been identified.

• Current challenges faced by the oilseed industry in Australia include drought, competition from soybean and palm oils…
Consultations with the Australian oilseed industry identified a number of current issues, perhaps the most immediate of which is that posed by the current drought. Canola production in the 2006/07 season is estimated to be the lowest in a decade with New South Wales the worst affected state.

The development of soybean and palm oil varieties that produce oil of similar quality to canola is of concern to the oilseed industry as both these oils are available in large volumes and at low prices on the world market. Developments such as these may affect the competitiveness of the Australian oilseed industry.

• …and the inability to adopt GM food crops such as canola due to moratoria.
The stakeholder consultations also identified a number of important challenges that will need to be addressed if GM oilseeds are to be widely grown in Australia. The most important of these are the current State and Territory Government moratoria that restrict the commercial growing of GM crops in many parts of Australia.

Other challenges identified by stakeholders were the need to address the perceived lack of public acceptance of GM technologies; and supply chain management issues such as segregation and coexistence. Many stakeholders believed that the introduction of GM oilseeds was necessary for the future viability GM oilseed of the industry, while a few stakeholders strongly disagreed.

Further investment in developing Australian GM oilseeds will be encouraged when there is a transparent and predictable pathway to market. There is also a need for communication of independent, credible, factual and practical information to producers and consumers, to inform discussion of these issues.

Following a decade of growing GM cotton in Australia, it is clear that these crops have provided economic, environmental and agronomic benefits to Australia. Similar benefits may result from growing other GM oilseed crops, if the issues identified in this report can be addressed across the whole oilseed industry. The widespread introduction of GM oilseed crops overseas is likely to continue in the future. Many of the countries adopting GM crops are competing with Australia in the world oilseed market.

In conclusion, available information strongly suggests that there will be economic, environmental and agronomic benefits from growing GM oilseed crops in Australia and opportunity costs if they are not adopted.

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:25 PM | Permalink

ISAAA
August 24, 2007

A 170 page- report on the "Economics of Bt cotton vis-à-vis traditional cotton varieties (Study in Andhra Pradesh)" by the Agro-Economic Research Centre of the Andhra University in India concludes that Bt farmers earned three times more than non-Bt cotton farmers in Guntur district and eight times more in Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh commissioned the study three years ago to examine the advantages, disadvantages, cost of cultivation and net return to Bt cotton as compared to other cotton varieties in selected districts.

The study confirmed that the average Bt farmer had a 46 per cent higher yield and applied 55 per cent less pesticides than the non-Bt cotton farmer in Guntur district. Bt cotton farmers in Warangal district applied 16 per cent less pesticides and reaped 47 per cent more cotton yield as compared to non-Bt farmers Farmers noted that Bt cotton gave early high picking rate due to less pest susceptibility and boll color was also good.

Economics of Bt Cotton vis-a-vis Traditional Cotton Varieties in Andhra Pradesh

(Average exchange rate in 2006: Rupee 45 per US$)

For a copy of the report, contact Prof. LK Mohan Rao, Honorary Director, Agro-Economic Research Centre (AERC), Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. More information regarding biotech in India from Bhagirath Choudhary at b.choudhary@isaaa.org.

Source: ISAAA.

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:49 PM | Permalink

Business Report
Hans Lombard, Consultant to agricultural biotechnology industry
August 23, 2007

The so-called evidence of genetically modified (GM) food dangers raised by Andrew Taynton is absolute rubbish and unsubstantiated (GM food dangers: Here is the evidence, Business Report August 14).

Taynton is entitled to his opinion but certainly not to his "facts". For "evidence", he uses an example of rats that developed potentially precancerous cell growth after being fed GM potatoes and rats that developed stomach lesions, with seven out of 40 dying within two weeks.

These so-called studies were done eight years ago, then denounced and rejected by scientists as flawed and scientifically unsubstantiated.

The infamous potato study was done by professor Arpad Pusztai in the UK in 1998.

Pusztai, in the first place, did not use GM potatoes; there were no GM potatoes grown commercially in the UK at that time. He used ordinary potatoes that he injected with a lectin.

These potatoes were never intended to be developed as a food crop, as was pointed out by Taynton's quoted source, The Lancet, in its July 3 1999 issue.

Surely Taynton must be aware by now that The Royal Society of London produced a peer review of Pusztai's study and concluded the experiments were badly designed, poorly carried out and inaccurately interpreted due to technical limitations of the experiments
I challenge Taynton to produce substantiated scientific or medical evidence of any adverse effects humans, animals or the environment have suffered as a result of GM food over the past 12 years (nine in South Africa; his reference to 65 health risks documented in a book by Jeffrey Smith is a joke: the book is a farce and flawed).

Source: Business Report

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:40 PM | Permalink

GMO Africa
August 22, 2007

Ever heard of a phrase “food imperialism?” Opponents of modern crop genetic engineering regularly use it to discredit genetically modified (GM) foods, especially in developing countries. Since virtually all agri-biotech companies are U.S.-based, they reckon that they promote the America’s dream of colonizing the global food supply.

This argument resonates well with those xenophobic enough toward anything U.S. Yes, we get to hate GM foods not out of scientifically proven safety concerns, but because they merely originate from mighty U.S. We allow activist groups to pander to us that GM crops threaten the environment and biodiversity, without demanding evidence to that effect.

Out of fear it’s misplaced - we demand that our own homegrown scientists be left alone to develop indigenous solutions to our food woes. This is usually music to those who least appreciate the potential benefits of modern agricultural technologies such as crop genetic engineering.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with scientists developing homegrown solutions to their countries’ food problems. Who wouldn’t love such patriotic scientists? Such efforts, however, must not be mutually exclusive to scientific developments in other parts of the world. We’re in a global village.

Personally, I don’t subscribe to zoning scientific research. Research is research irrespective of its geographical location. If research into biotech agriculture in a U.S. lab results in more nutritious, drought resistant and high yielding food crops that can be used in Africa, Asia, Europe or Latin America, well and good.

I see no justification, for instance, to discredit genetically modified (GM) crops just because they emanate from the U.S or Canada. How excited I am to learn that scientists from South Africa have developed maize streak virus resistant transgenic maize! For a long time anti-GMOs activists have argued that the U.S. wants to hoist GM foods on unwilling Africans. Now we have our own GMO product. Will we fete or condemn it?

This is an indigenous scientific breakthrough. It’s what, I rightly guess, proponents and opponents of GMOs have been waiting for. I anticipate it will receive unequivocal endorsement. It’s INDIGENOUS.

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:13 PM | Permalink

AgBioView
Andrew Apel, guest editor
August 22, 2007

A long-standing dispute between scientists and activists over a scholarly paper has recently resulted in several embarrassing defeats for the activists.

The dispute began with the 2003 publication by the British Food Journal of "Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn", authored by Douglas A. Powell, Shane Morris, and two of their colleagues. In 2004, the journal honored the paper with its Award for Excellence for Most Outstanding Paper.

The paper presented the results of farm-to-fork consumer trials conducted in 2000 by the University of Guelph's Food Safety Network. At Birkbank Farms, owned and operated by Jeff Wilson, sweet corn engineered to resist crop pests were grown side-by-side with conventional varieties, the resulting produce was offered to consumers, and the results were later quantified.

Jeff Wilson provided much of the impetus for the study. During the 1990s, his customers expressed a desire for reduced pesticides in the fresh produce he offered from his farm. This prompted him to adopt an intensive integrated pest management program. The approach failed in 1997, though, when conditions were ideal for the European Corn Borer and the crop-destroying parasites proliferated throughout his fields. Customers who had earlier said they could deal with wormy sweet corn by simply breaking the ends off of the cobs did not abide by their claims, and sales lagged. By the end of the season, Wilson had lost about $25,000 in sales. When Dr. Powell approached him in 1999 with the notion of growing a Bt version of sweet corn which had performed well in field trials in Florida, Wilson was more than interested.

One thing led to another, and eventually to the study of consumer preferences. When consumers were offered a choice between the varieties of corn, they were informed of the differences between them with a large placard which read: "Delivering High Quality Sweet Corn. In order to provide you with the quality of sweet corn that you want we have three options. 1. Genetically engineered Bt-sweet corn: contains Bt protein in leaves and stalk; and requires fewer insecticides to prevent worm damage thus minimizing environmental impact. 2. Bt-spray -- same Bt protein as in genetically engineered variety but sprayed on leaves; and protein exists naturally in environment and breaks down rapidly... 3. Conventional pesticides -- used by most farmers to create worm free corn; and applied according to guidelines set by governments, but harm to beneficial insects observed."

The consumers who participated said they made their choices based on taste and quality, as well as reduced use of chemical pesticides in production. In the end, engineered varieties outsold conventional sweet corn by a margin of three to two.

This finding contradicted what activists had for years been claiming about consumer sentiment. In response, the activists used a tactic similar to that lately used by Greenpeace to claim engineered corn is bad for rats. They didn't deny the data generated by the trials involved. Rather, they attacked the means used to reach the conclusion and offered their own interpretation.

The activists' case was opened for them by Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw. The reporter claimed that when he visited the Birkbank farm store on several occasions during the start of the trials, the hand-written sign above the non-GM corn said, "Would You Eat Wormy Sweet Corn?" while that above the engineered corn said, "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn." An undated picture of the "wormy" sign was posted online, and was interpreted as being an unwarranted influence on consumer preferences. This led the New Scientist magazine to question the research in a May, 2006 article.

What the opponents of Powell's work pointedly failed to mention is that after the first week of the study the signs they complained about were taken down. Only then did the formal data-gathering phase begin -- using machine-printed, laminated placards. These newer placards were viewed and photographed by Michael Khoo of Greenpeace, and Greenpeace has for unknown reasons failed to make these pictures public.

Joe Cummins, an emeritus professor at the University of Western Ontario who is a popular source for activist rhetoric, carried things a step further in August of that year. In a letter published in the British Food Journal, Cummins said the signs above the corn varieties demonstrated "methodological bias." He also complained that consumers were not offered "balancing information from critics" during the trials.

Powell's riposte to these accusations was published alongside Cummins' letter. His main point was quite simple: that the question, "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?" is relevant. The question is what cost Jeff Wilson $25,000 in lost sales because of corn borers and, according to Powell, "inquiring about his customers' preferences is not just good manners, it is good business."

These would have been the last words on the matter, except for further activist intervention.

Jonathan Matthews, of GM Watch and Lobby Watch, joined the fray in April 2006 by posting an article titled "Award for a Fraud" on the GM Watch website. The article implicated Shane Morris, a co-author of the paper, in committing outright fraud in collecting and presenting the data.

It is not entirely a coincidence that the second author of the Bt sweet corn paper was made the primary target. Though Morris is now a scientist working for the Canadian government, he is Irish by birth and heritage; and he maintains the GMOIreland blog. The blog mainly focuses on the scientific misrepresentations made by opponents of biotechnology in Ireland. Predictably, his exposures aroused their ire.

Michael O'Callaghan of GM Free Ireland joined in the attack, claiming in a letter to the editor of the Irish Times that the sweet corn study presented "fraudulent scientific results." The Times refused to publish the letter, so it was posted on the GM Free Ireland website and widely circulated via email.

The claim of "fraud" struck Morris as a libelous attack on his personal reputation, especially since the hand-written "wormy" sweet corn signs had gone up and come down before Morris was in Canada, before he was employed at the University of Guelph, and before the data were gathered. His Irish lawyers agreed. When this was brought to the attention of the Irish activists, O'Callaghan also appeared to agree, quickly retracting the allegations and publishing a correction on the GM Free website. The correction acknowledged that GM Free Ireland had no legal basis to make their claim of fraud, that the British Food Journal had found no fraud, that the paper "remains published as a valid piece of scholarly research," and that "the academic award for the paper remains valid."

Matthews was not so swift, and a good deal less gracious. His initial response was to target Morris' employment with the Canadian government and to re-cast the dispute as a conflict between Canada and Ireland. The company hosting the GM Watch website found that libelous statements violated its fair use policy, and when no amendments to the offensive language were forthcoming, saw no option other than to take the entire site down. It remained down for nearly a week. In the interim, perhaps as a precautionary measure, the Lobby Watch website voluntarily removed the page accusing Morris of fraud and it was spared a similar fate.

The GM Watch website is now back up, with the article title "Award for a Fraud" changed to "The GM Propaganda Lab Award 2006." In addition, all suggestions of fraud have been removed, in a stand-down rarely seen at GM Watch.

The same change has been made to the GM Free Ireland website, but with a twist. The word 'fraudulent' still appears, along with a fresh and contentious allegation that Morris "intimidated" and "harrassed" people in Ireland. It also alleges that, through Morris, "[t]he Government of Canada is engaged in an undercover dirty tricks campaign to harrass and discredit Ireland's policy in favour of a ban on GMO crops and livestock." Unless these allegations are substantiated, they could establish new grounds for personal libel.

Even though the Irish activists have been forced into submission, they remain relentless on the issue of Canadian consumers and sweet corn. Apparently, these activists cannot distinguish between scientific opinion, propaganda, fraud and libel -- but that problem is endemic throughout the protest industry.

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:42 PM | Permalink

Biotechnology blog
August 21, 2007

This advertorial appeared in the Aug. 26, 2002, special edition of Time magazine titled "The Green Century."
-

It's no wonder that global plantings of biotech crops increased nearly 20 percent last year.1 Farmers around the world have learned how technology in a seed helps them grow more food and crops while preserving their land. And plant biotechnology will likely become even more important in creating a greener 21st century.
-

An increasing global population is fueling demand for more and better food. Experts say farmers will need to at least double their production2 over the next 25 years to feed these new mouths at a time when annual yield increases have slowed.3 That puts both agricultural and wilderness areas under intense pressure. Consider:Environmental experts fear that up to half the world's 6 billion acres of tropical forests will be lost to agricultural expansion.4 Biologists warn that as many as 20 percent of all species in those forests could be extinct within 30 years.5 Two out of every three people could live in water-stressed conditions by 2025.6 Biotechnology could help by allowing farmers to grow more food on existing acres, including drought-prone or other marginal lands, which could reduce the need to put remaining wilderness areas under the plow. Researchers, for example, are developing:Corn and rice plants that are more tolerant of aluminum - a common soil toxin.7
-
Tomatoes and other crops that can thrive in salty soil8 - an agricultural problem in many arid regions where irrigation is used. And biotechnology is helping farmers produce more corn that can be used for bio-based fuels such as ethanol. In the future, biotechnology could help develop more renewable raw materials for energy and other industrial uses, and therefore provide even more environmental benefits.
-

A new study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy quantified the impact of biotech crops in the United States. Eight biotech crops planted in 2001 - including soybeans and cotton - boosted total production by 4 billion pounds, reduced spraying by 46 million pounds and generated an additional $1.5 billion in income for farmers.9
-

"Unless we are ready to accept starvation, or place parks and the Amazon basin under the plow, there really is only one good alternative: Discover ways to increase food production from existing resources," says Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program. "Biotechnology is by default our best and, maybe, only way to increase production to meet future food needs."10
-

Reducing hunger and sustaining the environment - those are good ideas worth growing.
1 James, Clive, Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, ISAAA Briefs No. 24 - 2001, .

2 State of World Population 2001," Chapter 2, Environment Trends, Moving Towards Food Security subhead, UN Population Fund, Nov. 7, 2001, <www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/ch02.html#2d>.

3 Hautea, Randy A., James, Clive. "The Road to Global Sustainable Agriculture: A View and Experience from ISAAA,"

4 "Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture," CGIAR, P. 24, <www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/shahbook/shahbook.pdf>.

5 "Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture," CGIAR, P. 24, <www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/shahbook/shahbook.pdf>.

6 Global Environment Outlook, 2000 - United Nations Environment Programme, <www.unep.org/geo2000/>.

7 "Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture," CGIAR, <www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/shahbook/shahbook.pdf>.

8 O'Connor, Anahad. "Altered Tomato Thrives in Salty Soil," New York Times, Aug. 14, 2001.

9 Gianessi, Leonard P. "Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture, An Analysis of 40 Case Studies, <www.ncfap.org/40CaseStudies/NCFAB Exec Sum.pdf>.

10 "Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will be Important to the Developing World," Martina McGloughlin, University of California at Davis, AgBioForum, 1999.

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:20 PM | Permalink

Reason Magazine blog
Ronald Bailey
August 21, 2007

Two U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization economists, Terri Raney and Prabhu Pingali write a sharp article in the September issue of Scientific American (sub required) on how genetically enhanced crops can and do help poor farmers in developing countries. I can't quote everything, but one particularly good point the FAO economists make is that scientific evidence shows that currently available biotech crops are not harming either people or the natural environment. To wit:

The chief food-safety concerns are are fears that allergens or toxins may be present and that other unintentional changes in the food composition may occur. Yet to date no verifiable toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of transgenic foods have been discovered anywhere in the world (emphasis mine). National food safety authorities of several countries have evaluated the transgenic crops currently being grown commercially and the foods derived from them, using procedures based on internationally agreed upon principles, and have judged them all safe to eat.

Environmental concerns center on the spread of transgenes to related crops or weeds ("gene flow"), the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, the development of insect pests resistant to the Bt toxin (which has long been used as a pesticide, particularly by organic farmers), harm by insect-resistant crops to nontarget organisms, and indirect environmental effects that come about because transgenic crops lead to different cropping practices.

Scientists disagree about the likelihood and potential consequences of these hazards. Gene flow, for example, is acknowledged to be possible when transgenic crops are grown close to related plants, but the transgene will persist and spread only if they give the recipient plant a competitive advantage. Such gene flow could inflict economic harm by, for instance, making a product ineligible for a status such as "organic." What would suffice to constitute ecological harm is more controversial.

Thus far, none of the major environmental hazards potentially associated with transgenic crops has developed in commercial fields. Herbicide-resistant weeds have been observed--although not necessarily caused by growing transgenic crops--and so far they can be managed by alternative herbicides. The lack of negative impacts so far does not mean they cannot occur, of course. Scientific understanding of ecological and food-safety processes is incomplete, but many of the risks highlighted for transgenics are similar to risks inherent in conventional agriculture as well.

Raney elsewhere argues that biotech crops can be pro-poor.

The economic evidence available to date does not support rhe widely held perception that transgenic crops benefit only large farms; on the contrary, the technology may be pro-poor. Nor does the available evidence support the fear that multinational biotechnology firms are capturing all of the economic value created by transgenic crops. On the contrary, the benefits are shared by consumers, technology suppliers and adopting farmers, although non-adopting farmers are penalized as their competitors achieve efficiency gains they are denied.

Her whole article on the pro-poor potential of biotech crops here.

With regard to gene flow, researchers have long recognized that the issue is not confined to genetically enhanced crops; it occurs between conventional crops and other plants as well. For more on gene flow see my column "Transgenics Gone Wild!"

For another report on the pro-poor nature of genetically enhanced crops take a look at this 2006 one by the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities.

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:52 PM | Permalink

American Chemical Society
August 21, 2007

BOSTON, Aug. 21, 2007 — Acrylamide, a synthetic chemical widely used as a water treatment agent and in the manufacture of adhesives, dyes and fabrics, has recently been shown to occur naturally in an increasing number of foods ranging from French fries to coffee. Some studies have linked high levels of acrylamide to cancer in animals and neurological damage in humans. Despite uncertainties over acrylamide’s actual health effects at the levels found in food, there is heightened public awareness about this compound. The potential health effects of acrylamide and ways to reduce its content in foods will be explored Aug. 21-23 in a special three-day symposium, “Chemistry and Toxicology of Acrylamide,” during the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society. The symposium, with more than 40 papers on the topic, will include experts from around the world who provide new insights into the compounds and particularly its biological effects.

All papers in this symposium are embargoed for Tuesday, Aug. 21, 9:00 a.m. The symposium will be held at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, Room 256. Selected papers are described below:

Dietary acrylamide may play a role in Alzheimer’s, researchers theorize — Scientists have known for years that acrylamide is capable of causing nerve damage in humans, including muscle weakness and impaired muscle coordination, particularly from industrial exposure to large levels of the chemical. Now, new laboratory studies suggest that chronic dietary exposure to the chemical is capable of damaging nerve cells in the brain and could potentially play a role in the development of neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s, according to Richard LoPachin, Jr., Ph.D., a neurotoxicologist with Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He notes that acrylamide is structurally similar to acrolein, a chemical found in increased levels in brains of patients with Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. Studies in humans are warranted, the researcher says. (AGFD 079, Tuesday, Aug. 21, 9:55 a.m.)

Acrylamide not linked to breast cancer in U.S. women, Harvard study finds — Foods that contain acrylamide are unlikely to cause breast cancer, according to preliminary results of a new study involving 100,000 U.S. women followed over a 20 year period. The study is the largest epidemiological study to date exploring the possible link between acrylamide and cancer in humans. Led by Lorelei Mucci, ScD, an epidemiologist at Harvard University School of Public Health in Boston, the study found that the incidence of breast cancer among women whose acrylamide consumption was considered high was roughly equal to the incidence among those whose acrylamide consumption was low. (AGFD 082, Tuesday, Aug. 21, 11:35 a.m.) FULL NEWS RELEASE AVAILABLE.

Acrylamide found in dried fruits — Dried fruits, which are rich in fiber and antioxidants, have long been promoted as healthful alternatives to fresh fruits. Now, Thomas Amrein and his associates at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology have found acrylamide in dried fruits, a surprising finding considering that these products are dried at relatively mild temperatures instead of the high temperatures, through baking and frying, that usually produce the chemical. The study suggests that acrylamide is capable of being formed under relatively mild conditions through reactions that are not fully understood, the researchers say. Of the different dried fruits tested, the highest concentrations of the chemical were found in dried pears and prunes, they say. (AGFD 197, Wednesday, Aug. 22, 10:15 a.m.).

Fat found to be significant source of acrylamide in food — Studies have shown that carbohydrates and amino acids, particularly the non-essential amino acid asparagine, are the main chemicals in food that are responsible for acrylamide formation. Now, a new study by researchers in Spain indicates for the first time that dietary fats make a significant contribution to the formation of acrylamide. The researchers found that high fat levels in roasted almonds may account for as much as half of the acrylamide found in this food and likely accounts for high levels found in other high fat foods, according to study leader Francisco J. Hidalgo, Ph.D., of the Instituto de la Grasa in Seville. Although the researchers say they have not yet demonstrated that reducing fat content in foods actually reduces acrylamide, the study provides a new target to consider in efforts to reduce acrylamide formation. (AGFD 200, Wednesday, Aug. 22, 11:30 a.m.)

Farming techniques, biotechnology may help lower acrylamide — Researchers in England are experimenting with novel agricultural practices and biotechnology in an effort to help reduce acrylamide levels in food crops. Nigel Halford, of Rothamsted Research, in collaboration with the University of Reading, says that increasing soil sulfur levels in wheat crops and reducing nitrogen availability in crops can decrease levels of asparagine, an acrylamide precursor. The researchers have also produced a new variety of potato through genetic modification that contains lower sugar levels than conventional potatoes and are targeting plant genes responsible for controlling asparagine levels in an effort to reduce acrylamide levels in food crops. (AGFD 241, Thursday, Aug. 23, 11:10 a.m.)

###

The American Chemical Society — the world’s largest scientific society — is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

— Mark T. Sampson

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:42 PM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
August 20, 2007

An Iowa farmer explains why 75 percent of U.S. soybean acres are now planted with biotech soybeans.

As it rolls through west-central Iowa, the Raccoon River nourishes some of the most productive agricultural land on earth. The river is also a prime source of clean water for the 270,000 residents of Des Moines, Iowa's largest city. ¹

Roy Bardole, who farms 1,400 acres bordering the Raccoon, makes his living from the land, but he also sees the imprint farming can leave on rivers, topsoil, animal life and water.

That's why he plants biotech soybeans, a variety designed by researchers to be able to withstand a herbicide that he only has to use once during a growing season vs. several times with conventional varieties of soybeans. Environmentally, it's the smart thing to do. Economically, it's been a proven boost to his bottom line.

Herbicide tolerant soybeans also allow Bardole to practice an ecologically friendly form of agriculture called no-till farming. Rather than plowing in the fall and harrowing before planting season, he leaves his fields virtually untouched, which in turn leaves more plant residue on the ground to replenish nutrients and hold topsoil in place. ²

Farming's oldest enemy is weeds. If Bardole planted conventional soybeans using a no-till strategy, he'd need to spray more intensively.³ With herbicide-tolerant crops, he can control weeds better and reduce costs. Better yet, he can keep yields up and do his part to reduce topsoil loss and help preserve the Raccoon.

A former president of the Iowa Soybean Association and officer of the American Soybean Association, Bardole says that it's unrealistic to believe that runoff can be completely eliminated from the river. But if he can significantly reduce runoff by plowing less, he feels obligated to do it.

"Whatever we can do to help protect the environment - we better do it," he said.⁴

Nationwide, it's estimated that biotech soybeans have saved almost 1 billion tons of soil that would have otherwise ended up in the nation's waterways or blown away.⁵ No-till and reduced-till farming practices - triggered in part by better weed control from biotech crops - also saved 234 million gallons of fuel in 2000 by reducing the number of tractor trips over fields.⁶

Working in the fields and walking on the riverbanks, Bardole sees the impact in smaller ways, in thrilling sights such as the appearance of wild mink on his farm for the first time in generations.

"We have wildlife on the farm today that my dad has never seen before, and he's over 90 years old," Bardole said.⁷

Like a rock tossed into the Raccoon, combining conservation tillage practices with biotech planting has a ripple effect on the environment, experts say. Nutrients stay in the soil, beneficial insects and earthworms thrive, and birds and mammals find more food and shelter.⁸

But Bardole sees other pluses as well. He notes that in 1991, his herbicide and related costs were $65 to $70 per acre. Today, those costs are less than $30 per acre.⁹ That confluence of economic and environmental benefits helps explain why in 2002, 75 percent of soybean acres were planted with biotech soybeans, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.¹⁰

Planting biotech has been a win-win for Bardole, who hopes to leave the farm, and the river running through it, in better shape than he found it for his two farmer sons.

________________________________________

¹ Henry, Lisa, "Raccoon River Watershed Project: A Partnership Process for Source Water Protection," River Voices, Fall 1996, p. 18.

² "Biotech Soybeans Help Soil Quality, Industry Says," Reuters English News Service, February 22, 2002.

³ "Trends Link Biotech, Conservation Tillage," Conservation Technology Information Center, Purdue University, <www.ctic.purdue.edu>

⁴ Henry, Lisa, "Raccoon River Watershed Project: A Partnership Process for Source Water Protection," River Voices, Fall 1996, p. 21.

⁵ "Environmental Benefits of Conservation Tillage," Purdue University, Conservation Technology Information Center, <www.ctic.purdue.edu>

⁶ "ASA Study Confirms Environmental Benefits of Biotech Soybeans." American Soybean Association, Press release, November 12, 2001, <www.soygrowers.com>.

⁷ "Reduced Soil Erosion, Improved Water Quality are Benefits of Biotech," Dow Jones Commodities Service, February 25, 2002.

⁸ "Environmental Benefits of Conservation Tillage," Purdue University, Conservation Technology Information Center, <www.ctic.purdue.edu>

⁹ "Reduced Soil Erosion, Improved Water Quality are Benefits of Biotech," Dow Jones Commodities Service, February 25, 2002.

¹⁰ "Corn Planted Acreage Up 4 Percent from 2001; Soybean Acreage Down 2 Percent" National Agricultural Statistics Service, June 28, 2002, <usda.mannlib.cornell.edu>.

Source: Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by CS Prakash at 2:08 PM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
Jodie Thomson
August 20, 2007

Allowing WA farmers to grow genetically modified canola could unlock a crop worth an extra $200 million a year, according to an assessment by a leading academic which increases pressure on the State Government to end its moratorium on GM crops.

Professor Michael Jones, director of the WA Agricultural Biotechnology Centre at Murdoch University, said GM canola could deliver a windfall for growers through boosted yields of up to 20 per cent.

Professor Jones’ assessment came as Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran released a national report outlining the environmental and economic benefits of the new technology in a move designed to add pressure on State governments to lift moratoriums on GM crops.

The Bureau of Rural Sciences report examining oilseed crops such as canola and cotton warned the industry would struggle over the next decade without production benefits from biotechnology.

Professor Jones said GM canola would increase yield potential by 15 to 20 per cent, adding $200 million a year to the value of WA’s canola crop.

“They would be using more environmentally friendly herbicides and down the line you would expect oils with improved health properties and you could also see more efficient use of fertiliser,” he said.

Canola is an oil and fodder crop and can also act as a “break crop” where it is used in crop rotation systems to help control weeds and plant diseases.

About 500,000 tonnes of canola is expected to be harvested in WA later this year, less than 7 per cent of the State’s total predicted grain crop, which is dominated by wheat and barley.

GM canola has been grown for years by major competitors Canada and the US and is likely to be the first broadacre GM crop to be grown in the WA Wheatbelt if the State Government’s moratorium is lifted.

A conventional canola variety is in full flower at Ashley Wiese’s property south of Narrogin. He expects per hectare returns to be good this year, a result of booming global prices and above average yields. While the returns can be strong, it is a relatively expensive and risky crop to grow, which has led to the State’s production falling in recent years. The offer of better gross margins was likely to increase canola plantings. Mr Wiese supports the push by the State’s farm groups for the GM moratorium to be lifted.

“I think there has been a swing in producer sentiment,” he said. “In the early days the big concern was that we would lose markets but I think consumers have shown us direction in their lack of willingness to pay a premium for non-GM product.”

An estimated 4.8 million hectares of GM canola, about 5 per cent of global biotech crop area, was grown last year, mainly in Canada and the US.

Yesterday’s BRS report warned that the failure to adopt the GM technology could cost the Australian economy $3 billion over the next decade and the oilseed industry would struggle in coming years without production benefits associated with GM varieties. WA shadow agriculture minister Gary Snook yesterday criticised Labor’s “sit and see” policy.

Agriculture Minister Kim Chance denied there was significant pressure on the State to lift its moratorium, which is due to be reviewed next year.

“Most of the contact received by this office seeks an extension of the moratorium,” he said.

GM opponents said the report was a “rehash” of well-known facts and figures.

Biological Farmers of Australia spokesman Scott Kinnear said the promise of improved profits for farmers was unrealistic and Australia was likely to follow the experience in North America where there were problems segregating grain or seed.

Source: Checkbiotech.
Original Source: The West Australian

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:17 PM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
Dr Gio Braidotti
August 17, 2007

Here’s an article by Dr Gio Braidotti on the benefits of agricultural biotechnology and “Australia’s target of doubling the water-use efficiency of cotton crops in just 10 years.”

The cotton industry’s success with genetic modification to amplify pest-management benefits has led it to target even more ambitious gains.

Having seen biotechnology reduce pesticide use in cotton crops by 80–90 per cent, Cotton Australia is applying a similar strategy to slash the amount of water needed to grow cotton. This bold target is, again, relying on CSIRO expertise across a range of agricultural technologies.

Over the next three years, $17 million provided by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation and the Cotton Catchment Communities Cooperative Research Centre will be spent applying a broad range of technologies to achieve Cotton Australia’s target of doubling the water-use efficiency of cotton crops in just 10 years.

Cotton Australia CEO Adam Kay admits the goal is ambitious, but given the unprecedented success of pest control and pesticide reduction based on cutting-edge gene technologies, he is confident the new goal is achievable.

The water-use efficiency target will be based on a similar strategy developed to introduce and sustain the genetically modified (GM) cotton that has allowed the industry to dramatically cut back on its use of environmentally damaging pesticides.

At CSIRO Entomology, assistant chief Dr Gary Fitt explains that in dealing with cotton’s major pest “the Helicoverpa moth” CSIRO developed GM cotton varieties using Monsanto’s Bt gene, which delivers an insecticidal protein obtained from the Bt soil bacterium.

However, Bt toxins have been used for decades as environmentally friendly sprays, and overseas studies have shown that insect pests are capable of developing resistance to Bt when the compound is over-used as a spray.

“In Australia, Helicoverpa has a history of repeatedly evolving resistance to pesticides,” Dr Fitt says. “So when GM cotton became available in Australia it was released with a specially designed, pre-emptive resistance management strategy.”

These combined advances “in biotechnology and resistance management” have since delivered unprecedented environmental and pest-management benefits. Gains include a resurgence of beneficial insects that help growers deal with additional pests. The strategy also includes a longstanding monitoring system that allows CSIRO to determine that after a decade of using GM cotton, there has been no change in the resistance status of Helicoverpa to Bt.

Mr Kay says preventing the emergence of resistance is essential to the industry’s future. “The strategy we used was based on the best science available and that was provided by CSIRO.”

He further stresses that although the benefits brought about by GM technology are unquestionable, the industry also needs great cotton varieties in which to introduce novel GM traits. “This is where CSIRO Plant Industry’s cotton breeding program is so critical: it provides the platform for continuous improvements in yield and fibre quality through the addition of conventional and GM traits.”

Looking to the future, Mr Kay says there are more GM traits in the R&D pipeline and that the next big issue is water: “We already have the most efficient water-use growers in the world, but we are looking to add further to those achievements.”

Contact:
CSIRO Enquiries
Solve@csiro.au
www.csiro.au
1300 363 400
+61 3 9545 2176

Source: Checkbiotech.
Original Source: CSIRO Australia

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:25 PM | Permalink

Blackwell Publishing
August 15, 2007

The first all-African genetically modified crop plant with resistance to the severe maize streak virus (MSV), which seriously reduces the continent’s maize yield, has been developed by scientists from the University of Cape Town and PANNAR PTY Ltd, a South African seed company. The research, published in Plant Biotechnology Journal represents a significant advance in African agricultural biotechnology, and will play an important role in alleviating Africa’s food shortages and famine.

Dr Dionne Shepherd, lead researcher explains, “MSV is transmitted to maize by small insects called leafhoppers. The disease is therefore a result of a complex interplay between the plant, the virus and insect. Factors that can influence the severity of the disease include the age at which the plant is infected (the younger the plant, the more severe the infection), the maize variety (some are more susceptible than others), and environmental conditions.

“We have created an MSV-resistant maize variety by genetic engineering, using an approach known as pathogen-derived resistance. This means that a gene from the viral pathogen is used to protect the plant from that pathogen. We mutated a viral gene that under normal circumstances produces a protein that is essential for the virus to replicate itself and inserted it into the maize plant’s genome, creating genetically modified maize. When the virus infects one of these transgenic maize plants, it displays a significant delay in symptom development, a decrease in symptom severity and higher survival rates than non-transgenic plants.”

The next stage of the research involves field trials to ensure that the transformed crop is digestible, that the protein is not an allergen and that it will be ecologically friendly to other organisms within the environment. Following the results of these trials, the crop will be monitored over a number of growing seasons before it is made accessible to local farmers.

Notes to editors:

1. The article referred to is:

‘Maize streak virus-resistant transgenic maize: a first for Africa’ by Dionne N. Shepherd, Tichaona Mangwende, Darren P. Martin, Marion Bezuidenhout, Frederik J, Kloppers, Charlene H. Carolissen, Adérito L. Monjane, Edward P. Rybicki and Jennifer A. Thomson.
Plant Biotechnology Journal, Online Only, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00279.x

To view the article free on Blackwell Synergy click here

2. To request an accompanying image email lucy.mansfield@oxon.blackwellpublishing.com

3. For more information, contact Dionne Shepherd, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa.
Email: dionne.shepherd@uct.ac.za

4. Plant Biotechnology Journal is an international journal published in association with the Society for Experimental Biology and the Association of Applied Biologists. For more information visit the journal homepage: www.plantbiotech.com

5. About Wiley-Blackwell
Wiley-Blackwell was formed in February 2007 as a result of the merger between Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.'s Scientific, Technical, and Medical business. Together, the companies have created a global publishing business with deep strength in every major academic and professional field. Wiley-Blackwell publishes approximately 1,250 scholarly peer-reviewed journals and an extensive collection of books with global appeal. For more information on Wiley-Blackwell, please visit www.blackwellpublishing.com or http://interscience.wiley.com.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00279.x

Source: Blackwell Publishing.

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:35 PM | Permalink

Center for Global Food Issues
August 14, 2007

A new study published in an alternative agriculture journal has gained widespread attention by claiming that organic farming not only could adequately feed the world, it might even yield more food and require less farmland. It is a truly sensational claim.

In science, the more sensational the claim, the more robust the evidence needed to support it. This time, the evidence doesn’t stack up. In fact, the evidence fell so far short that the journal that published the paper also published not one, but two scathing and dismissive “editorial responses” in the same issue. This is anything but a ringing endorsement.

A simple comparison of the authors of the paper and critiques is revealing. The “organic can too feed the world” authors are a collection of urban academics without any agricultural experience. The lead author studies fossil squirrel’s teeth at the University of Michigan’s Museum of Paleontology. The others are with Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. In contrast, the authors of the two critiques are an agronomist at the University of Nebraska, Kenneth Cassman, and Colorado organic farmer Jim Hendrix.

As Cassman put it, “their analyses do not meet the minimum scientific requirements for comparing food production capacity in different crop production systems.”

First, many of the studies they relied upon to support their claim simply aren’t reliable. One large data set (comprising over half of the “yield ratios” they used to estimate food production in the developing world) are merely guestimates of increased productivity from a questionnaire sent to activists running organic “demonstration” farms. That doesn’t even remotely approach “science,” especially when the returned questionnaires include implausible organic yield increase claims of more than 500 percent. Another large dataset used by the Michigan researchers is so questionable that a paper critical of it published in the journal Field Crop Research was titled “Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy?”

Central to this entire debate is the shortage of organic nitrogen fertilizer, a.k.a. manure. Currently, there is only enough animal manure to support one fifth of current global crop production. They only way to get more organically is to devote more land to legume crops or animal pastures that fix more nitrogen—which would require billions of acres of additional farmland the world doesn’t currently have.

The Michigan researchers dismiss this sobering reality by calculating that, theoretically, enough nitrogen can be fixed by growing cover crops during fall/winter and between crops to make up the shortfall. As Dwight Eisenhower once stated, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from a corn field.”

The final, sadly amusing testimony to the fantasy world occupied by these researchers comes from the conclusion of their policy forum article, where they point to the shining example of Cuba as “one of the most progressive food systems in the world” where organic farming is successfully feeding a country. Ah, yes, the famed Cuban “agricultural enlightenment” brought about by the ending of Soviet industrial fertilizer and pesticide donations.

How has Cuba fared after “going organic?” According to unofficial statistics, Cuba suffers massive food shortages and rations basic food staples. But don’t take my word for it. Listen to these Cuban immigrants interviewed in a December 27, 2006 story on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition:

Joel Lopez, a skinny 19-year-old who arrived on Dec. 14, 2006 in Miami through the [immigration lottery], or Bomba as it is called in Cuba. Through a translator: “Everything is so surprising here, the cleanliness of the streets, the food, the shops. Well, there is no comparison. . . . I have been telling [my friends] about a Chinese buffet I went to. I told them about how you can serve yourself again and again!”

Sitting next to him is Louisa Martinez. Her husband was a baker in Cuba. But still for her, it’s the food that is the most dazzling. Through a translator: “Oh the food! Here there is a surfeit of food. Over there, there is a LOT of hunger. It’s terrible.”

So who are you going to believe: The urban pencil pushing elites, or the real farmers and real victims of the so-called “progressive food” movement?

Source: Center for Global Food Issues.

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:01 PM | Permalink

ACSH Facts and Fears Blog
Thomas R. DeGregori
August 14, 2007

The media mania for "both sides" of an argument means that one has to balance informed opinion with misinformed opinion. This frequently allows the public to believe that there is a controversy among scientists on an issue when there is not. And if scientists appear (at least in the media) not to agree on the safety of genetically-modified (GM) food, why should I as a consumer "take a chance"? In fact, though, there is no more controversy among knowledgeable scientists on the basic issues of transgenics in agriculture and medicine than there is among biologists and physical anthropologists about the basic fact of evolution. Nor is there controversy as to whether HIV is responsible for AIDS.

Of course, in these instances, there are differences among scientists on various issues within a larger framework and often differences about some of the components of the framework. There is a critical difference, though, between debate on various aspects of evolution or biotechnology and opposition to the basic ideas. Given the number of scientists in the world, it is always possible for an anti-evolution or anti-transgenic movement to find a few scientists who will take up their cause. Most of these are very minor or marginal figures in the field or are in another field altogether, as in the case of a mathematician or physicist who opposes evolution. Unfortunately, the cultural bias on things "organic" allows food and gardening writers to put forth an activist line without any requisite balancing opinion.

There are many other advantages that the activists have that allow them to get their point of view into the media, often to the exclusion of any contrary perspective. To put it bluntly, even in countries with high levels of education, there is too often a high degree of scientific illiteracy. Given various trends in academia such as postmodernism (which may now be ebbing), being highly educated can still entail a condition of extreme scientific illiteracy or what Thorstein Veblen called "trained incapacity." All these give the skillful activist speaker the opportunity to appear to score points against a scientist in a debate.

Rhetorical Masterstrokes, Scientific Absurdities

There are few questions where scientific illiteracy by the public is more crucial than the issue of food safety. A standard rhetorical ploy in a debate on transgenic food production is to ask whether the persons defending the technology can guarantee that no harm will ever come from the production and consumption of genetically-modified food. To many, this sounds like a straightforward honest question from someone seeking to protect the public from harm. However, the fact is that there is no human endeavor, food production or otherwise, for which there is zero risk. The real question is what are the comparative risks and benefits to the farmer or the environment from growing a transgenic crop, compared to other varieties, and what is the risk to the public from the consumption of transgenic food compared to the same crop from conventional seeds. On these grounds, genetic modification is more than defensible, but to the scientifically uniformed listener it sounds like one is waffling, trying to avoid answering the question.

One can say that transgenic food production is "safe" if one understands the only possible meaning of safe. I explain to my students that I cannot say that there is a zero probability that the building in which the class is held will collapse on them during the course of the semester. Given adequate construction, one can simply say that the probability of harm is so minuscule that one need not consider it among one's daily risk assessments. It is a safe but not zero probability. The students can understand that for the classroom, but try using that to explain the safety of biotechnology and some will think that you are trying to pull a fast one on them.

Scientific Illiteracy Suits the Media Just Fine

For the public to be scientifically illiterate is deplorable; for the media it goes beyond deplorable to being irresponsible. One does not expect the media to negate the natural advantages of the activists, but the least they could do is be responsible and not repeat unscientific propaganda or leave it unchallenged. They can challenge it by contacting scientists and giving them the opportunity to offer a scientific perspective on an issue. While most scientists use their time to do science and not to propagandize the public, it is not that difficult to find scientists who will respond to media inquiries and share their expertise with the public.

With few exceptions, reporters do not understand the use of statistics in scientific inquiry. The oft-quoted expression (attributed to Mark Twain among others) is that "There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics." Unfortunately, scientists have inadvertently contributed to this belief through incorrect use of statistics. However, for many in the public, all statistics are mistrusted -- don't give me any of your statistics, just give me the facts. The anti-GMO activists have played on these sentiments to frighten the public about the use of transgenics in food production. In any animal feeding study with a large number of variables, one can expect that randomly there would be what appear to be adverse outcomes. Indeed, with a large number of variables, it would be strange if there were not a number of what appeared to be statistically significant adverse outcomes. To the activists, statistics are meaningless except for those statistically significant adverse outcomes.

In one infamous study with thirty variables, there was, as would be expected, one variable with an adverse outcome that at the 95% confidence level had a one in twenty chance of being random. It was a thickening of an organ, with no identifiable pathology associated with it. There was an organ-thickening in the control group, too, but that was left unmentioned. The primary article about the study was an outgrowth of a press release roughly eighteen months previously in which there was a sizable list of alleged pathologies. In the litany on the Internet, the original claims of harm from the press release have somehow migrated to the journal article in the activists' retelling and retelling of the horrors of GMOs.

Fear Feels More Real Than Numbers

To the public, the harm is real; the statistical explanation, however basic it may be, is someone's attempt to "massage" the data. If there is, say, liver or kidney damage, there has to be a cause. Well, that's true, and how convenient it is that the activists accept a belief in cause and effect when it suits them. What is not understood and rarely if ever explained to the public, is that the "cause" may be a trait of the test animals rather than what is being tested.

A misunderstanding of statistics by the public has long been used by activists to create fear where there should not be any. There seems to be a general belief that random means uniform. Thus, if in the distribution of some phenomenon, such as a particular form of cancer, there is what appears to be a cluster -- a larger number than would be expected by an even distribution -- then many leap to the conclusion that there has to be a local cause. From there, the assumption inevitably becomes that the cause is some product of modern life such as a synthetic chemical. An inordinate amount of medical resources has been wasted seeking a cause for clusters that are not statistically significant. The cluster itself may have been what is called a Texas Bull's eye, where one shoots a number of rounds at the side of a barn and then draws a target over the tightest grouping, if there is one.

Prolapsed Rectums as Political Theatre

It does happen in animal studies that an anomaly in the test animals necessitates its being removed from the research and the data derived from it censored. It may be censored, that is, but it is still part of the research record. In one case of which I am aware (it had absolutely nothing to do with transgenics), a small number of mice in the control group developed prolapsed rectums and had to be removed from the study. Nevertheless, the censored data itself remains as part of the record of the research for all to examine. The number was small enough that even with the censored data removed, the study could continue. The study was completed, published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, and widely accepted. Let us imagine that this had been a GMO feeding study for regulatory approval and at least some of the mice with prolapsed rectums had been fed the GMO under investigation -- and that the data for them was appropriately censored, with the resultant study results sent off for statistical and biological analysis, leading to product approval.

Can one imagine what would follow when Greenpeace or a similar organization discovered the