GMO Food for Thought

Truth about Trade & Technology
By Dean Kleckner
October 26, 2007

“We can’t all be heroes,” said Will Rogers. “Somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.”

I’d be happy to sit on the curb and clap--but first a hero has to show up. After reading an article about the 2008 presidential candidates and biotech-food labels in last week’s Des Moines Register, I’m now worried that I may be in for a long wait.

The Register asked the leading candidates, as determined by their poll-tested popularity among Iowa voters, whether they would support a law requiring special labels for GM foods. Unfortunately, not a single one of them replied with the correct answer, which is to oppose labels because they’re completely unnecessary.

Three of the four top Democrats said that they’re in favor of labels: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. The only one who didn’t say he was in favor was Barack Obama, who didn’t respond to the question.

On the Republican side, three out of four said that they had “no position” on the issue: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Mike Huckabee didn’t reply.

It might be said that “no position” is better than outright support for labels, on the grounds that it leaves room for the possibility of opposition. That’s true, as far as it goes--but it isn’t far enough.

I’ll be sitting on the curb and holding my applause until one of these politicians steps forward and does the right thing.

Warning labels for biotech foods are a very bad idea for a simple reason: There’s nothing to warn against.

Many Americans still don’t realize it, but they eat GM food just about every day. They’ve been doing it for years. Currently, more than 90 percent of the soybeans and nearly 80 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified, according to the Department of Agriculture.

By now, Americans have eaten trillions and trillions of meals that include GM components. There isn’t a single documented case of anybody so much as sneezing from them. They’re perfectly safe for human consumption.

Biotechnology is simply a means of production--a technique that allows farmers to grow more food on less land. (This trait has the remarkable quality of being both good for the environment and healthy for rural economics.) The food’s fundamental qualities are essentially no different from those that are produced with conventional seed.

We don’t label books based on whether their authors are right-handed or left-handed because we know it doesn’t affect the quality of their work. The same is true with crops. Their seeds may acquire traits through conventional breeding or biotech innovation--the end result is safe and nutritious food.

The problem with labels isn’t merely that they convey unnecessary information, but that they also raise needless suspicions. By and large, in the U.S., we label items when they pose a potential threat. If we start labeling GM food products, it may give people a reason to believe they have something to fear from researchers who use the latest innovations to help feed the world.

Last week, Ken Kamiya, a papaya farmer in Hawaii, visited Des Moines to attend the World Food Prize festivities. He explained how biotechnology saved papayas from a disease that nearly wiped out papaya farmers in his state. “Without biotechnology, there would be no papayas in Hawaii,” he said.

He would like to export his fruit to Japan, but he’s concerned that the government will slap labels on what he grows. “If you try to translate genetically modified food into Japanese, it comes out as ‘Godzilla’!”

Ridiculous misperceptions are exactly what anti-biotech activists want to foster. “Once this becomes the law of the land, [food companies] will reformulate their products,” said Anne Dietrich, the director of a group called the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. “Iowa is the best place to start.”

Scare tactics are appropriate for ghosts and goblins on Halloween, not for politicians on Election Day. Biotech foods suffer from too many villains. They need a few heroes.

Source: Truth about Trade & Technology

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:02 AM | Permalink

Reuters
By Carey Gillam
October 23, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct 23 (Reuters) - The time is right for a renewed push for biotech wheat, leading U.S. wheat industry players said this week, as tight world wheat supplies and high prices underscore strong global demand for the key food crop.

"We in the wheat industry are wanting to re-engage. We sure see the need for that technology," said Joseph Kejr, chairman of the joint biotechnology committee of the National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets U.S. wheat to the world.

"The technology has been good for other commodities, cheapening production and increasing yields," Kejr said. "We need to be able to hurry up the process for wheat."

U.S. wheat prices have soared to historic high levels in the past few weeks, with futures prices nearing $10 a bushel, up from about $4.50 a year ago. The price hike is tied to crop shortfalls in many key producing nations, which has triggered a scramble around the world for adequate supplies of the bread-making grain.

Wheat industry players say they have warned for years that wheat acres were in decline because a lack of technology to deal with troubling weather, weeds and disease. And years of reluctance by wheat buyers to embrace genetically modified wheat has made any immediate help impossible, say technology providers.

There are still many hurdles to acceptance of biotech wheat, but industry leaders expressed fresh hope that the current squeeze can generate acceptance for gene technology that could make wheat more profitable for farmers to grow and thus more plentiful.

"Maybe the world will be more accepting of biotech wheat now," said Darrell Hanavan, executive director of the Colorado Wheat Growers Association and past chairman of the biotech wheat committee. "The world situation is very tight."

The U.S. Agriculture Department on Oct. 12 projected that global wheat stocks would fall to 32-year lows by the end of the 2007/08 marketing year, at 107 million tonnes. U.S. wheat ending stocks for 2007/08 were projected at 307 million bushels, the lowest since 1948/49.

"The market is getting what it had coming," said Allan Skogen, a North Dakota farmer and biotech proponent.

The U.S. wheat industry was sharply divided five years ago over Monsanto Co's (MON.N: Quote, Profile, Research) efforts to commercialize a GMO wheat that tolerated treatments of its Roundup herbicide.

Key foreign wheat trading partners and many domestic food companies warned they would not buy biotech wheat because of consumer health and safety concerns, and Monsanto ultimately shelved its biotech wheat plans in 2004.

Since then any advancement in biotech wheat has been sluggish at best. Monsanto competitor Syngenta (SYNN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research) has in its pipeline a spring wheat that is resistant to fusarium disease.

But Syngenta spokeswoman Anne Burt said the wheat was "not on a commercial path" at this point and Syngenta was focused on achieving market acceptance.

Many wheat players were looking toward Australia, where BASF (BASF.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) was in the early stages of researching drought-resistant wheat varieties. But that project is likely several years from commercialization as well.

"It's moving forward, but we're not in a position where anything is at the point where we're talking about commercialization," said BASF spokeswoman Fran Castle.

Indeed, it will likely take cooperation between Australia, Canada and the United States, all major world wheat suppliers, to achieve biotech wheat acceptance and commercialization, said National Association of Wheat Growers CEO Daren Coppock.

"I think we're getting closer," he said.

Source: Reuters

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:54 AM | Permalink

Check Biotech
By Hans Pienaar
October 22, 2007

Trials for a new drought-resistant gene to be used in genetically modified crops will start next month in various locations in South Africa, according to seed producers Monsanto. The news comes as Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk warned in parliament that climate change would lead to a 20 percent reduction in the maize crop over the next 25 years.

Kobus Steenkamp, biotechnology manager of Monsanto in South Africa, said during a visit arranged for the media to Monsanto's experimental farm near Malelane in Mpumalangaa that the company had been granted permission to locally start testing the "drought-gene" developed in United States laboratories.

According to Monsanto's calculations, 30 percent of maize in SA is at risk of failing because of drought - by far the most important factor in crop failures.

The "drought tolerance product" causes maize plants to make more efficient use of the water they get, as well as to "tolerate" the absence of water.

At first, the gene will be bred into maize lines, but drought-tolerant soybeans and cotton are expected to be on the market "early in the next decade".

Proud Monsanto managers said over 55 percent of all maize planted for the next harvest will be genetically modified (GM). Their projections show that this will soon shoot up to 75 percent.

"This is the single technology that is reshaping agriculture and industry and revolutionising medicine," said a press release.

Steenkamp rejected claims that GM foods were harmful to human health.

"I have been eating GM 'mieliepap' for years, and there is nothing wrong with me," he said.

Hundreds of millions of consumers in the United States have so far not reported a single side effect from eating GM foods.

He also dismissed claims that Monsanto's gene manipulations would create "Frankenfood" by transplanting genes from one species to another, saying that Monsanto's ethical code prohibited this.

He pointed out that gene manipulations do not add any foreign materials to foods, since they work with the same amino acids that human stomachs break down during metabolysis - no new amino acids ones are added to the food chain. Neither are any new allergens added, which might be the case with products flown in from different areas.

Future products that might be introduced into SA agriculture include "omega-3 soybeans", which would bring the heart-healthy fatty acid, common to fish like salmon, into consumer diets.

"As the global climate changes, the need for rapid adaptation of our current cultivated crops will become increasingly important," the press release said.

In the past two years Monsanto's market share has skyrocketed, on top of its introduction of RoundupReady herbicides. The seeds and herbicides are sold to farmers in a marketing operation that has recently been integrated.

RoundupReady kills all plant life in a field sprayed by hand from a backpack.

Monsanto maize seeds with a gene that resists the herbicide are then planted. The company markets the combination of chemical and seed as drastically reducing labour costs for weeding and the use of pesticides.

Some environmental activists claim RoundupReady is toxic.

But Steenkamp said GM maize, which also includes hybrids that resist worms and insects, obviates the use of pesticides that are sometimes sprayed on to homes in the vicinity of traditional fields.

Dave Kleyn of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, of which Monsanto is a sponsor, agreed, and said his organisation would soon start with with assessments of reduced usage of pesticides on farms near Winterton, KwaZulu Natal.

Monsanto is also intimately involved in a project to help emerging farmers learn to farm. The RoundupReady and GM maize combination is well suited to new farmers who cannot afford the labour to weed fields or the pesticides for traditional crops.

Background information

More than half of all maize sold to South African consumers is the product of genetic engineering, according to new statistics released by Monsanto.

GM foods have become controversial for their alleged harmful effects on human health.

GM maize has been produced for 12 years already in South Africa, and GM patents have been passed by European Union bodies, where consumer resistance to GM foods is the greatest, Steenkamp added.

Bright Breytenbach, Monsanto's maize and sunflower manager in SA, said that 55 percent of all new seeds sold to farmers for the next season had been genetically modified.

He said it was impossible for consumers to distinguish between GM maize and non-GM maize, since grain silos are no longer able to store them separately. In addition, cross-pollination from GM fields to non-GM fields occurs regularly.

"If you buy a bag of maize meal at a supermarket, you can be assured that more than half of it will have been genetically modified," he added.

The GM seeds are prepared in US laboratories and brought to Malelane, where they are introduced to hybrid lines of maize in a process that takes at least two years. They are then given to "pivot farmers", who breed more seeds that are then taken to a dryer plant near Lichtenburg.

Monsanto has invested R120-million in upgrading the plant.

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:33 AM | Permalink

GMO Pundit
Philip Hopkins
October 19, 2007

A group of farmers is, according to this story, seeking to develop frost-resistant, genetically modified wheat using a gene from Antarctica. The Molecular Plant Breeding Co-operative Research Centre will conduct the research for the farmers, who have formed a company, Green Blueprint International. GBI has lodged a prospectus to raise $2 million to fund the research.

The story says that the partners aim to develop frost-resistant wheat varieties using a gene from Antarctic hairgrass and explain that the frost-tolerant gene creates a protein that inhibits icy crystal growth in the plant.

Chief executive of the Molecular Plant Breeding CRC Glenn Tong was cited as saying genes for these ice recrystallisation proteins were not unique to Antarctic hairgrass and were also in wheat and barley, but researchers hoped the Antarctic genes would lead to better ice crystal inhibition.

West Australian farmer John Stone said 75 farmers were already part of the scheme, which aimed to have 100 investors contribute about $20,000 each.

Source: GMO Pundit

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:51 PM | Permalink

Biotechnology Market News
October 19, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles O. Holliday, Jr., today told participants at the World Food Prize that biotechnology will enable the world to keep pace with the rapid growth in global demand for food, feed, fuel and materials.

"Biotechnology is the most powerful tool available to secure a safe, sustainable food and energy future," Holliday said. "It holds the promise to deliver the world more, higher quality grain with less environmental impact."

The World Food Prize is the foremost international award recognizing the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world.

Holliday said, "Global population growth is driving increased demand not only for food but also for renewable energy and materials, for greater safety and security, and for increased connectivity." Holliday said that as a market-driven science company, DuPont is working on solutions to meet needs in all of those areas. He underscored that DuPont science includes capabilities in chemistry and biology, as well as in emerging fields such as nanotechnology.

"In the process, DuPont will maintain its strong commitment to sustainability," Holliday said, outlining DuPont's 2015 sustainability goals which encompass market-facing objectives - such as increasing the number of environmentally smart products from research and development - as well as continuing the company's progress in reducing the environmental footprint of its products and operations.

Holliday said that DuPont is using biotechnology to improve farmer productivity and profitability, increase grain quality and yield and enhance biofuels production. "The DuPont research pipeline is full of biotech traits that will increase yields, enhance nutrition, improve biofuels production, tolerate drought and require less nitrogen," he said.

He noted that plant biotechnology has been adopted faster than any other technology in the history of agriculture. "Farmers around the world have recognized the significant value of biotechnology and have adopted its use at an amazing pace," Holliday said.

DuPont also is developing new technologies for the growing renewable fuels market, such as improving biofuels production through improved seed and crop protection products; developing new technologies to allow conversion of cellulose to biofuels; and developing next-generation biofuels.

DuPont is a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation.

DuPont

CONTACT: Doyle Karr of DuPont, 1-515-270-3428,
doyle.a.karr-1@usa.dupont.com

Web site: http://www.dupont.com/

Source: Biotechnology Market News

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:07 PM | Permalink

AgBios
By Gil Gullickson
October 18, 2007

Soybeans were first on the traits bandwagon when industry introduced glyphosate-tolerant soybeans in 1996.

"We live in a glyphosate-tolerant world," says Gene Kassmeyer, head of Syngenta's soybean product line. "Sales of non-glyphosate tolerant soybean varieties are less than two percent."

Corn quickly surpassed soybeans with traits resistant to glyphosate, European corn borer and corn rootworm. Now, traits are swinging back to soybeans' corner.

Kassmeyer recently visited with Agriculture Online about several soybean traits and new developments that are on deck in the next few years. They include:

• Soybean aphids resistant varieties that are slated to be released in 2009.
• Soybean cyst nematode resistance. Syngenta plans to launch a new source of SCN-resistant soybean in 2010.
• New herbicide tolerances. Kassmeyer says Syngenta has a several new herbicide tolerances with a three to six year time horizon that will provide growers with new ways to control weeds.

Syngenta is not alone in developing new weed control technology. Pioneer Hi-Bred International and its parent company, DuPont, plans to launch its alternative glyphosate technology, Optimum GAT. in soybeans in 2009 and corn in 2010. BASF recently announced that it is aims to register BAS 800H, a corn and soybean herbicide with a new mode of action, in the United States by 2009 or 2010.

Syngenta plans to continue to bring varieties to market each year with improved resistance to all major soybean diseases, especially Sudden Death Syndrome. Other maladies include iron chlorosis, white mold, and phytophthora root rot. Syngenta also plans to launch a variety with Asian rust tolerance by 2012.

The industry is also focused on output traits aimed at consumers. Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Monsanto have had low-linolenic varieties on the market for several years. These soybeans contain low amounts of linolenic acid. These types of soybeans can reduce or eliminate transfatty acids in foods by replacing hydrogenated oils. Transfatty acids have been linked to obesity and heart disease.

Syngenta aims to launch ultra-low linolenic soybeans in 2009. These soybeans contain less than one percent linolenic acid.

Seed costs will increase

All this means rising seed costs. "The retail price for beans today is in the mid-$30s (per bag) to the upper $30s before discounts," says Kassmeyer. "In the pre-glyphosate days, seed costs were $12 to $15 per bag."

Although this might pain your pocketbook, there's an upside in that it forces farmers and seed dealers to think more about soybean variety selection and inputs to protect those varieties.

"It used to be you'd spend quite a few hours selling corn hybrids, and maybe 10 minutes selling three pallets of beans," says Kassmeyer.

No more. Now, the increasing emphasis on traits and complex breeding techniques is prompting farmers to look more closely at soybean variety selection, he says. It's a way of boosting production so soybeans can stay competitive with corn when it comes to planted acreage. The biofuels market will continue to pressure soybean acres, he adds.

"The real dilemma in soybeans is how to get more production out of each acre," says Kassmeyer. Syngenta aims to meet this dilemma through its genetics, traits, and crop protection products, he adds.

Source: AgBios

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:44 AM | Permalink

Check Biotech
By Fabienne Heimgartner
October 16, 2007

Almost everyone has heard of, or experienced, the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Now a laboratory at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia has described a plant- derived protein, which could soon be used as an anti- cancer vaccine, thus reducing the number of people who would need chemotherapy.

Scientists in the group around Dr. Hilary Koprowski at the Biotechnology Foundation Laboratories at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia produced a plant-derived, colorectal cancer antigen, which is a substance that the human body recognizes as foreign and thus triggers an immune response.

Dr. Koprowski's team inserted the genetic information that can produce the antigen into tobacco plants. The plants in turn generated colorectal antigen (EpCAM) in large quantities just like an assembly line ("Plant-derived EpCAM antigen induces protective anti-cancer response" Cancer Imunollogy and Immunotherapy 2007).

To see if these plant-derived proteins could elicit an immune response, Dr. Koprowksi's group then injected EpCAM into mice. All of them reacted with the production of EpCAM-specific antibodies, which could be detected in the serum.

To go one step further, the scientists grafted colorectal cancer cells into a mouse that does not contain an immune system, called a nude mouse. Since nude mice do not posses immune cells, the researchers subsequently injected them with immune cells capable of producing antibodies to EpCAM. The serum took over the job of the immune system, and indeed inhibited the growth of the cancer cells.

Until now, antibodies were mainly produced in mice or microbial systems, but the data obtained by Dr. Koprowski's team show that plant-derived antibodies are as good as antibodies produced in animal cells.

From an economic perspective, the use of plant biotechnology has clear advantages when compared to mammalian technology such as, very high production levels and low investment. Plus, plants offer a more environmentally friendly production method because they can help reduce greenhouse emissions.

Taken together, Dr. Koprowski's work indicates that plants could be an important and promising tool to produce antibodies for anti-cancer vaccination. If enough funding and support is acquired to run clinical trials on the vaccine, one day, it might be possible to receive a prescription for an anti-cancer vaccine.

Fabienne Heimgartner is a Science Journalist for ACCESS! and is currently gaining her first work experience as a biologist.
f_heimgartner@yahoo.de

Contact
Prof. Hilary Koprowski
Department of Cancer Biology
Jefferson Medical College
Thomas Jefferson University
233 South 10th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
United States
Phone: (215) 503-4761
Hillary.Koprowski@mail.tju.edu

Publication
Brodzik et al. Plant-derived EpCAM antigen induces protective anti-cancer response. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, published online July 19th 2007
http://www.springerlink.com/content/30j54p613218rk65/

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 2:55 PM | Permalink

Farmers Weekly Interactive
By Mike Abram
October 16, 2007

Opposition to biotechnology, agrochemicals and genetic modification will threaten the ability to feed an ever-increasing global population, the president of the British Crop Production Council has warned on the opening day of the organisation's congress.

In his opening address, Hugh Oliver-Bellasis suggested antipathy towards modern technology could lead to “modern starvation”.

“During the past 10 years, consumption has quite often been greater than production; that is most unwise when the world demand grows year on year.”

Without biotechnology, agrochemicals and genetic modification, the ability to produce more would evaporate quickly, he said.

“The solution won’t be easy, but we have to convince policy makers that there is a political issue to be addressed as well as a practical one.”

Political pressure on crop production was increasing, he pointed out.

“Next week, the European Parliament will consider new legislation that will further impede pesticide approvals – by basing them not on real risk but on potential hazards. This could seriously affect European farmers’ day-to-day production. We must protect our ability to defend against pests and disease. If we do not we will legalise modern starvation.”

The congress should aim to set an agenda and an action plan to address politicians and other key influencers, he stressed.

Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:57 PM | Permalink

The American
By Patrick Moore
October 12, 2007

By embracing genetically modified ‘golden rice,’ says Greenpeace co-founder PATRICK MOORE, the world can help millions of people in developing countries.

It’s been seven years since a Swiss research team demonstrated that genetically enhanced “golden rice” could help prevent vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which is responsible for roughly half a million cases of childhood blindness in developing countries each year. Indeed, golden rice was created by a German scientist named Ingo Potrykus to solve just this problem. Unfortunately, a number of activist groups such as Greenpeace have mounted public campaigns against it, trafficking in scare tactics and misinformation. As World Food Day (October 16th) approaches, we must renew our commitment to making available a food product that could vastly improve people’s lives and prevent thousands of needless deaths.

Unlike other rice plants, golden rice produces beta-carotene in its seeds, through genetics that Potrykus and his team imported from corn. Beta-carotene is the precursor of vitamin A, which is crucial for vision and disease resistance. Yet Greenpeace insists that the unknown future consequences for human health and the environment make golden rice too risky. (Never mind the half million children who go blind every year as a result of VAD.)

I am often asked why I broke ranks with Greenpeace after co-founding the group in 1971 and then spending 15 years in its leadership as a full-time environmental activist. One of the main reasons was that by the mid-1980s the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of scare tactics and sensationalism.

At the same time, I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development, which takes environmental ideas and incorporates them into the traditional social and economic values that govern public policy and our daily behavior.

Every morning, six billion people wake up with real needs for food, energy, and materials. The challenge is to provide for these needs in ways that reduce our negative impact on the environment, are socially acceptable, and are technically and economically feasible. I came to believe that seeking consensus among environmentalists, the government, industry, and academia was essential for sustainability.

But not all my former colleagues saw things that way. Many environmentalists rejected consensus politics and sustainable development in favor of continued confrontation, ever-increasing extremism, and left-wing politics.

The case of golden rice provides a clear illustration. Some international agencies estimate that as many as 200 million people in the developing world—especially from countries in which rice is the dominant grain—suffer from VAD. Some of its adverse health effects include shorter lifespans, night blindness, corneal scars, blindness and measles among children, and night blindness among pregnant and lactating women.

There have been numerous scientific studies conducted on the potential effects of growing and using golden rice. They indicate that golden rice can indeed contribute, in a cost-effective manner, to the alleviation of VAD, thereby easing children’s suffering and, in many cases, saving their lives.

My old Greenpeace compatriots counter these findings not with their own science, but rather with Hollywood-style fictions about “killer weeds” and “Frankenfoods.” Their campaign suggests a complete lack of respect for science and logic. It is clear that the real benefits of genetic enhancement far outweigh the hypothetical and sometimes contrived risks claimed by its detractors.

What possible risk could there be from a corn gene in a rice paddy? Even in the unlikely event that vitamin A spread into other plants, I can’t see how that would be harmful. On the other hand, the consequences of not planting and harvesting large quantities of golden rice are already obvious: a few million more children will go blind, and millions more will suffer. Yet Greenpeace activists threaten to rip the rice out of the fields if farmers dare to plant it. They have done everything they can to discredit the scientists and the technology.

But despite their opposition, some countries are using golden rice to combat malnutrition. Experts in the Philippines believe that by 2011 the first genetically enhanced rice will pass all Filipino regulatory requirements and make its much-awaited commercial debut. The country plans to release “three-in-one” golden rice, so called because it is fortified with vitamin A, iron, and zinc. This is a result of breeding golden rice into “PSB Rc82,” the technical name for the most popular variety grown all over the Philippines.

Overall, we need to do more to break through the misinformation and hysteria surrounding golden rice—not to mention other genetically modified foods—and provide a more balanced picture to the general public. The programs of genetic research and development now under way in labs and field stations around the world focus on both society and the environment. Their purpose is to improve nutrition, reduce the use of synthetic chemicals, increase the productivity of our farmlands and forests, and improve human health. Those who have adopted a zero-tolerance attitude toward genetic modification threaten to deny these many benefits.

An adviser to government and industry, Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace and is now chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Source: The American

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:36 PM | Permalink

Compiled by C.S. Prakash
October 12, 2007

The Independent Posts Interview with Kings College Faculty Member Calling GM Crops “Dangerous and Unnecessary”

Abstract: Members discuss the need for a response after the United Kingdom newspaper The Independent published an anti-biotech article interviewing an associate professor at Kings College. Dr. Michael Antoniou of Kings College argued that “genetically modified crops are dangerous and unnecessary.”

Several members expressed the need for a letter written not only to the newspaper but also the Dean of Kings College, pointing out the factual errors in the article. One member noted that another Associate Professor from a UK college published a similar article and after a letter was written to the University was forced to write a letter or apology for her “fear monger lies.” Finally, another member suggested, “Whoever writes to the Independent should point out that Antoniou is not describing GM, but rather mutation breeding, a system highly disruptive of the genome, and in which no one has any evidence of the genomic changes or risks, yet has been used for over half a century to generate over 2,000 crop cultivars with no known health or safety hazards reported, and therefore no need to banish.”

Link to original article in The Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/education/higher/article2999527.ece

YouTube Video Posted by Member Predicted the “Demise of GM Crops”

Abstract: A member posted a video to YouTube containing a CBC News clip of OECD Summit on GMO safety in Edinburgh March 1, 2000, featuring a debate between Patrick Holden of the Soil Association Alan McHughen in which Holden predicts the demise of GM crops within five years.

One member suggests that other members leave comments on the YouTube video “in anticipation of the anti's getting their licks in first” since the video is on a public site.

Link to the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwE0cqdZWlY

Members Discuss YouTube video of Interview on Monsanto vs. Schmeiser Court Case

Abstract: A member posted a video to YouTube containing a CBC interview with Alan McHughen concerning genetically modified crops and the Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser court case. The interview originally aired in June of 2000. The video also contains a short spot on the British Royal Family’s views on GM crops.

One member commented that he agreed with Prince Phillip’s view that the introduction of exotic animals was more of a threat than genetically modified crops. The member stated that he felt “the greatest risks to biodiversity were (1) habitat destruction (including agriculture itself!) and (2) introduction of exotics.” He also asked Why the comparison of GE vs. 'traditional' agriculture not gain traction mainstream. Another member responded by saying that the closest thing to “traction” this issue receives is in the negative sense, with how much more of nature would need to be sacrificed to farming if less productive farm technologies were used.

Two other members commented on the subject, saying that “most people take for granted the status quo of agriculture's preemption of landscape-- some even lament it when farmland is abandoned and reverts to forest.”

Link to YouTube video being discussed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbAhdcfTuaA

AgBioWorld is comprised of ag-biotech experts who take a keen interest in the latest news and events important to ag-biotech. This blog aims to be a reflection of those events and news stories that have captured our attention. Please share your comments and feelings on the current climate for biotech with us as well.

Best regards,

C.S. Prakash

Posted by CS Prakash at 2:10 PM | Permalink

YouTube
October 4, 2007

Click here to watch this video advertisement posted on YouTube, promoting biotechnology and produced by the Council for Biotechnology Information. The video explains what biotechnology is and how it helps farmers “feed a hungry world.”

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:08 PM | Permalink

Check Biotech
By Owino Opondo
October 04, 2007

NAIROBI - Genetically modified foods could soon become part of Kenya's national menu, if President Kibaki enacts a Bill whose debate Parliament began yesterday. Locally grown bananas. GM foods could soon be part of our menu if the bill in Parliament becomes law.

The proposed law provides for legal and scientific infrastructures to regulate modification of genetic organisms and to enable the country to reap from the benefits of biotechnology.

MPs who spoke during debate on the Biosafety Bill were united in celebrating the economic benefits of science.

It was time, they said, the Government borrowed a leaf from South Africa and Burkina Faso, which are among Third World countries that are reaping from biotechnology and the scramble for seeds.

Describing the Bill as a piece of legislation whose time had come, the MPs poured cold water on some civil society organisations they claimed were hell-bent on discouraging legalisation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), even at a time when the country was spending billions of shillings to import food.

Initiating debate on the Bill on Tuesday, Science and Technology minister Noah Wekesa said modification of genetic organisms and products urgently required a legal regime within which to operate.MPs heard that Kenya needed to pass the Biosafety Bill to domesticate the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol, to which the country is a signatory. The Bill was seconded by Kaiti member Gideon Ndambuki (Kanu).

The Bill seeks to facilitate responsible research into, and minimise the risks of harm that may be posed by GMOs. It also aims at ensuring adequate level of protection for the safe transfer, handling and use of the organisms.

Among other things, the Bill proposes the establishment of the National Biosafety Authority to supervise GMO research and provide regulations to ward off profiteering at the expense of human lives.

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:53 PM | Permalink

Check Biotech
By Allen V. Estabillo
October 04, 2007

BANGA, Philippines – For an ordinary farmer, only a miracle can make a corn plant survive for almost a month under an unusually intense heat and without a single drop of water.

But a scientific breakthrough practically made that history after local farmers here witnessed for themselves how a new corn variety developed by a local biotechnology company was able to survive a drought for 29 straight days.

"It's both a miracle and a genetic breakthrough. It's just timely to have this new weapon when our worst fears about global warming are unfolding before us," said plant scientist Dr. Antonio Mercado.

Mercado, a University of Philippines Los Banos (UPLB)-trained plant breeder, spent almost five decades collecting various corn varieties available in the planet on his quest of a perfect genetic base for his pet project.

After 10 years of continuous research, Mercado finally cracked the right genetic make-up for probably the first drought-resistant corn variety in the world. Mercado's own biotechnology firm ACM genetics eventually launched Gloria I Socialized Hybrid Corn Seed, which has been dubbed as "the answer" to the worsening effects of global warming in the country.

Mercado personally named the new corn variety "Gloria" in honor of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Despite lacking enough financial backup and working by himself, Mercado still managed to launch his project a decade ago at his farm in barangay Reyes here. He squeezed his own savings in order to put up his own corn gene bank and a small research station.

Mercado said he started his research by studying the genetic traits of some of the corn genes that he had collected from his travels to various parts of the world. He eventually developed Gloria variety out of a broad genetic base, primarily from corn varieties in Mexico, Thailand and UPLB.

"Its parent gene is from diverse origins and I carefully selected them out of the traits that are needed for a heat-tolerant variety," he said.

Mercado has tested the Gloria variety in Bukidnon, Wao in Lanao del Sur, North Cotabato, Sarangani and Isabela and the results turned out favorable.

"It's tested and proven to thrive in both wet and dry seasons in any part of the country," he said.

Early this year, ACM Genetics started the commercial distribution of the product at a price much lower to other branded hybrid varieties.

A bag of the Gloria corn variety, which is just enough for a hectare of farmland, has approximately 65,000 seeds and costs at least P1,700 only.

Owing to Mercado's successful research, the local government has invested on establishing its own gene bank in a bid to develop more hybrid corn varieties in the future.

The investment is in line with the efforts of Banga Mayor Isidro Janita to develop this once sleepy municipality into a "corn-based agri-industrial center in the south" and eventually the country's corncapital.

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:32 AM | Permalink

Reuters
By Sybille de La Hamaide
October 03, 2007

PARIS (Reuters) - France risks losing its seat among top food producers if it rejects genetically modified (GMO) crops altogether in an upcoming law on biotech organisms, French farmers and producers said on Wednesday.

Orama, the lobby gathering French grain and oilseed growers, joined by seedmakers and several politicians, warned against "peddlers of fear" which fight against the use of GMO at a time when most other big producers adopt the technology.

The call is part of a wide government-led debate on the future of France's environment policy during which the fate of GMOs in the country has been a subject of heated discussions.

France and many other European countries, pressured by reluctant consumers, has long opposed a widespread use of GMO crops, contrary to other big producers such as the United States which has a far higher take-up of GMO technology.

"Today there are 102 million hectares sown with GMO seeds around the world. What we fear is that if France rejects GMOs we will be left behind and be dependent on other countries technology," said Orama's president Philippe Pinta.

"If we discourage research we doom our future," he added.

French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said last month that the government wanted to continue allowing laboratory research on GMOs but envisaged to ban both the sale and cultivation of GMO crops.

The idea was welcomed by green groups, opposed to the technology they say could prove dangerous to human health, but it was widely criticized by farmers who say France needs to keep up research, which also implies field tests.

"If we want to fight against the U.S. domination we have to give ourselves the means to do so," said Jean-Yves Le Deaut, head of a parliamentary commission on GMOs.

Under pressure from skepticism among ordinary consumers towards biotech foods -- polls show that between 75 and 80 percent are opposed to GMOs -- France has only granted approval for one type of GMO crop, produced by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, to be cultivated for commercial purposes.

So far, just 22,000 hectares -- 1.5 percent of France's cultivated land -- have been sown with GMO maize this year.

Farmers also stress a contradiction between banning production and/or research on biotech crops and allowing the import of food products that contain GMOs.

"The French will end up being the laughing stock because they'll be eating what they refuse allowing their farmers to grow," said Christian Pees, president of France's seedmakers group Euralis.

Source: Reuters

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:03 PM | Permalink

Check Biotech
October 02, 2007

Genetically modified crops could be good for the health of insects if they lead to a reduced use of chemicals. An international bee conference has heard pesticides and herbicides are the biggest threat to insects like bees and more research should be done on the benefits and risks of GMOs.

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries' Doug Sommerville says while European trials show GMO5 are bad for bees, there are contradicting results in Australia.

"We're actually looking at increasing the window of opportunity of putting bees on cotton crops in northern NSW because of GMOs," he said.

"Because of the reduced amount of insecticidal use in the crop, it may offer the opportunity for bees to be moved into that crop and increase the seed yield, or the crop yield, with the honeybee pollination aspect and bees may actually get a box of honey out of it."

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 4:57 PM | Permalink

Check Biotech
October 01, 2007

CEBU, Philippines - The Department of Agriculture (DA) says that genetically modified (GM) products have been scientifically proven to be safe to the consumers and to the environment contrary to fears raised by some environmentalists.

Dr. Saturnina Halos, chief of the DA-Biotech Advisory Team (DA-BAT) assured the consumers that all GMOs that are approved for commercial release whether for food, feed or processing are safe and do not pose health risks to both the consumers and the environment

Halos explained that all GM products were subjected to a rigorous science-based safety assessment and the most stringent biosafety regulations by competent authorities and experts to make sure that they are safe and do not have harmful effects to the users and the environment.

Halos added that all GMO applications have to pass through a wringer comprised of several layers of assessments from independent scientists, all of whom are accorded the time to check on the organisms, report their findings and subject the GM products to repeated tests for toxicity and impact on indigenous plants and animals.

Apart from the safety assessment by experts from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) and other regulatory agencies of the DA, the Scientific Technical Review Panel (STRP), an independent scientific body, also evaluates the GMO applications, the DA-BAT said.

She also noted that safety protocol followed by the Philippines competes with the system operating in the European Union (EU), which has the strictest scientific regulations as far as GMOs are concerned.

To prove her claim, Halos said none of the 44 GMO products approved by the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) since December 2002 has caused any ailment among the farmers who planted them and the people who consumed them. The first GMO to be approved for commercial release in the Philippines in December 2002 was the pest-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn, which is now cultivated all over the country.

"All 44 GMO applications approved for commercial release in the Philippines have undergone careful review by other scientific bodies and equally competent authorities. They are as safe as their non-GMO counterparts," Halos said.

Halos added that aside from the safety assessment by experts from the BPI and the STRP, the process of approval calls for public consultations, from the initial evaluation of the technology to the testing in greenhouses, then in individual field tests and then to testing in multiple sites.

She concluded that before GMOs are released for field applications and finally to the market, the GMOs had undergone a very tedious process of public consultations, meetings with various stakeholders and careful evaluation of issues and concerns, thus farmers, consumers, medical practitioners and critics are accorded the opportunity to check on the GMOs.

As these developed, the country is pushing for international guidelines in bio-tech trade that will govern the import and export of Genetically Modified (GM) products.

Jennifer Ng in her article at the Business Mirror wrote that Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is currently meeting and in the middle of discussion in Chiba, Japan on the proposed guidelines that will govern international bio-tech trade.

Dr. Emelea Cao, director of the National Sciences Research Institute at the University of the Philippines is the country's representative to the Codex ad hoc inter-government task force on foods derived from biotechnology and she has been active in giving inputs to the CAC.

"We are very active in giving our inputs because we want to make sure that the country would be able to maximize the benefits from biotechnology trade in the future," Cao said.

According to Cao, the Codex guidelines will govern testing procedures, safety protocols and tolerance levels in place to prevent the occurrence of 'illegal events or contamination."

While the implementation of the proposed guidelines is voluntary, Cao said the guidelines will be a good reference point especially for countries that are keen on importing biotechnology products.

Paul Green, a consultant with the International Grain Trade Coalition, earlier said guidelines that will govern the international trade of GM products would help prevent food shortages caused by a number of factors, such as the rise in demand for biofuels, Ng wrote.

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:24 AM | Permalink