GMO Food for Thought

Herald Sun (Australia)
Andrew Bolt
November 30, 2007

THE campaigners warning us we might end up with two heads after eating GM foods are ignoring the science that says it's good for you.

Let me prove how dead to reason are the state politicians now screaming that genetically modified crops could kill us.

These Greens and soy-milk Labor panic-merchants actually got their scientific advice from Jeffrey Smith.

Now there's a laugh -- or would be if it didn't confirm we're losing our minds. Unreason rules.

Smith, an activist and author of Seeds of Deception, was brought out from the United States to convince us Premier John Brumby was toying with our lives by deciding now to lift at last Victoria's ban on GM canola.

And how glad our greens, anti-capitalists and conspiracy-theorists were to hear him. In fact, he got the kind of reception we normally reserve for that other Profit of Doom, Al Gore.

The ABC gave him lots of air time, without expressing the slightest doubt about his evidence or credentials. Same story with The Age, which ran a typical Smith polemic.

"There is irrefutable evidence that GM foods are unsafe to eat", Smith roared. "Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans . . ."

In fact, GM corn had a gene that "if transferred from corn snacks, for example, it could turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories".

Gosh. Your guts turned into poison factories. Think of that.

Think also how useful to a professional alarmist like Smith are words like "if" and "could" -- especially when none of the millions of people who have snacked on GM food have found their stomachs actually converted into Mortein plants.

And think, too, what it says about Smith that he fails to add that the Food and Agricultural Organisation says the rat study he relies on "is unlikely to present a public health concern".

Yet the most astonishing part of Smith's visit was that he walked into Parliament House on Tuesday last week as the guest of anti-GM politicians who wanted a briefing on the science behind his scares.

What was so astonishing about that, you may ask? Astonishing is that Smith walked in, rather than floated.

You see, Scientific Smith not only thinks GM foods are dangerous, he thinks also he can fly.

Smith has been for years a follower of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (guru to the Beatles) and, like the Yogi, has preached the virtues of yogic flying.

Working on the Senate campaign of the Maharishi's Natural Law Party in 1996, he publicly claimed there were 500 studies proving that yogic flying and transcendental meditation cut crime and increased IQ. He even demonstrated some flying himself, although he did little more than bump up and down on his undercarriage.

I wonder why no journalist who feted Smith on his trip felt that needed reporting, or why no politician asked even whether a man who thought he could fly was likely to have a firm grasp of scientific principles.

Maybe the answer is that the opposition to GM crops is led largely by people who don't care about the science -- not really -- and are likely to be up for a little levitation themselves.

If reason counted, they might actually concede that GM crops are now grown in 22 countries, in some cases for more than a decade, and no one yet has yet reeled away from the dinner table, clutching their new second head or the smoking patch where their genitals used to be.

Indeed, look as hard as they can, scientists just haven't found proof that these crops do anything but good.

That's why our federal Gene Technology Regulator gave the green light to GM canola six years ago.

That's why Australia's chief scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, says GM food crops are not only safe, but essential to the future.

That's why Food Standards Australia New Zealand has approved the GM foods on our shelves, which Australians have munched through happily without exploding.

And that's why the World Health Organisation summed up: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health.

"In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."

Indeed, it wasn't science but pure fear that prompted the Labor Government to ban GM crops four years ago.

Not fear of the crops -- but of the rage of superstitious green believers who read wild books like Smith's and consult their prejudices against science, business and modernity to conclude the scientists are all wrong. That there's a conspiracy to poison us. (Er, but why? Why kill your clients? And isn't it time for your pills?)

How that dumb ban on GM crops has hurt us. A panel appointed by Brumby and led by scientist Sir Gustav Nossal has found it would soon be costing us $29 million a year. Worse, it had already driven away researchers and forced farmers to use many tonnes more of herbicide than they'd need for GM canola. This green policy is actually poisoning the earth.

So Brumby -- a rationalist -- said the ban on GM canola would go. The NSW Government announced ditto.

And now these brave politicians must withstand the fear campaign whipped up by the most superstitious of their colleagues, fed by eco-profiteers like Smith.

Yes, Smith does profit from the panic he helps to sow, and not just by selling his books.

He is also a vice-president of Genetic ID, a laboratory that specialises in testing for traces of GM crops, which it does for many activist groups.

And what is Genetic ID? A lab long run by John Fagan, a professor at the Maharishi University of Medicine and author of Genetic Engineering: The Hazards, Vedic Engineering: The Solutions. Yes, a Maharishi follower.

The lab's religious objections to GM crops are clear from the blurb of Fagan's book, which claims genetic engineering offers only short-term partial fixes with damaging side-effects, while Maharishi's vedic engineering offers comprehensive, life-supporting solutions.

Sure, a scientist may be a religious crank, yet also know his GM onions.

Except it seems that Smith, for one, peddles a string of scary claims that don't stack up, including one repeated by an Adelaide academic on the ABC's 7.30 Report on Wednesday.

That was the allegation that a Russian scientist, Irina Ermakova, fed GM soybeans to rats, only to find they gave birth to pups that were runts and often infertile.

More than 500 activist groups -- and our own anti-GM politicians -- have seized on this study as the proof they've long needed. Yet no other reputable study had found anything of this kind, and Ermakova never put up her study for peer review.

So the Nature Biotechnology journal recently sent Ermekova questions on her study and got several scientists to review her answers.

Those reviewers concluded, among other things, that Ermakova seemed not to have fed or housed her starving rats very well at all, which was probably why so many died and so many others were malnourished.

Moreover, she'd been unclear on how much GM food she'd used, hadn't given evidence for her findings and even had doubts in her own mind about her results, which "depart so dramatically from previously reported findings as to be remarkable".

Ermekova's study was proof? Only to someone who'd take a science lesson from a human hovercraft. But so mad are our times that plenty now do, including even our own politicians.

So mad are these times, in fact, that . . . well, global warming. Say no more.

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:27 AM | Permalink

Italian Field Trial Results Suppressed

Abstract: Members discuss an announcement that Italian government officials and scientists withheld data from field trials comparing conventional and GM maize for two years. The data shows that Italian farmers have potentially forfeited between roughly 300 million and 1 billion Euros a year because of the continued ban on GM crops. One member posted a press release asking that other members distribute it widely, especially to those in the media. Another member posted a Food Navigator article on the issue.

Sources:

Press Release on the Announcement

Food Navigator article

The Truth about Fair Trade, Organic and Locally Produced

Abstract: A member of AgBioWorld distributed the criteria for fair trade, which includes a note about “harmful agrochemicals and GMOs” being “strictly prohibited.” The member also included an article from The Economist on the real impact of organic, fair trade and locally grown food.

Sources:

Fair Trade Certified Criteria

The Economist article

Maine Considers Rules for Regulating Bt Corn

Abstract: The Maine Board of Pesticides Control announced that it would hold a meeting to discuss proposed rules regulating the use of genetically modified corn. Several members suggested that at least one member of the group should go to the meeting and represent their opinions. The original article noted that those against the introduction of Bt corn in Maine would be in attendance, and likely citing a study that supposedly showed Bt corn causes the unintended increased mortality in aquatic species. The group agreed that someone needed to be there to counter the flawed research.

Source: Morning Sentinel (ME)

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 3:39 PM | Permalink

GMO Africa
November 22, 2007

This week I revisit the relevance of GM crops to Africa’s agriculture. Two anti-biotech activists from South Africa prompt me to do so.

Andrew Taynton of South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE) and Dulcie Krige, a social scientist, claim GM crops aren’t the solution to food insecurity that bedevils Africa today. Writing in the Legal Brief, the two, in their article entitled, “Are GM crops the solution to Africa’s food problems?” argue food sustainability in Africa is possible without crop genetic engineering.

“…thousands of years of careful seed selection by African farmers has given rise to local varieties with valuable attributes such as drought and disease resistance,” they observe. To them, seed scientists can use a marriage of indigenous knowledge and modern technology to produce “…varieties which result in increased yields and disease resistance without running the risks associated with GM.”

Taynton and Krige identify Marker Assisted Systems (MAS) as one of the technologies that Africans must embrace in place of agricultural biotechnology. They argue it’s safe and cost effective. They even sneaked in a quote Jeff Cox, Monsanto’s Northern Europe, made in August 2002, to the effect that Marker Assisted Systems (MAS) could be used to boost crop yields, to bolster their argument.

The two take issue with GM crops out of concern that biotech companies’ sole interest is to patent seeds, then sell them to farmers at rooftop prices. Here, the obvious targets as usual are multinational biotech companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer. My question is, if the problem is corporate profiteering, why should Africa not see this as an opportunity to invest in GM seeds production? Africa has a galaxy of scientists who can make great marks in this field.

The debate on GM crops’ relevance to Africa is as old as the technology behind them. There are those, like Tayton and Krige, who believe GM crops have no role to play in Africa’s agriculture. There are others, like myself, who deride the argument that Africa must avoid GM crops at all costs. Other continents are practicing agricultural biotechnology, and so should Africa.

I agree GM crops might not solve all of Africa’s food problems, but they have a pivotal role to play to solve the problem. It would be an aberration to, even, declare GM crops the cure to global food problems.

Every technology, including crop genetic engineering, has a value to a particular segment of the society. Farmers who prefer Marker Assisted Systems technology, for instance, must be allowed to embrace it, while those for GM crops should be left to their own devices. There’s nothing like mutual exclusivity, where the adoption of one agricultural technology automatically excludes the other.

People must stop inciting African farmers against technologies, such as agricultural biotechnology, that might improve their bottom line.

Posted by CS Prakash at 10:04 AM | Permalink

Check Biotech
November 21, 2007

EAST LANSING - The percentage of genetically modified crops grown in Michigan is on the rise, and sugar beets are no exception. Michigan growers will begin planting Roundup Ready sugar beets, which can be sprayed with a non-selective herbicide without injury, in 2008.

Christy Sprague, crop and soil sciences professor at Michigan State University (MSU), is researching growing sugar beets in narrow rows as a way to manage weeds and increase yield.

Her findings will provide growers of Roundup Ready sugar beets with recommendations for timing of herbicide applications, effective weed control and maximum yield.

Weed control in sugar beets is critical, Sprague pointed out. In MSU trials, lack of weed control reduced sugar beet yields by 30 to 100 percent.

“The use of herbicide in combination with the Roundup Ready crops will provide good control over weeds,” Sprague said. “We want to come up with effective weed management options that all sugar beet growers can use.”

Sprague’s research goal is to reduce the number of weeds that grow in sugar beet fields by growing the beets in narrower rows, which will make them more competitive with weeds.

The narrower rows will allow the leaves of sugar beets to be closer together, preventing sunlight from reaching the ground and reducing weed germination, Sprague explained.

Along with better weed management, Sprague’s research aims at increasing yield by growing more sugar beets per acre while maintaining crop quality.

She will also study the effects on sugar beet yield and quality from planting at various rates.

“We want to see if adding a few more plants can maximize yield in the field,” Sprague said. “We also want to make sure that we would be producing more sugar in the beets. Even if the beets are heavy, their sugar content may still be low.”

Currently, most Michigan growers plant their sugar beets in 30-inch rows to allow space for cultivation between the rows throughout the season.

Roundup Ready sugar beets will need less cultivation, so narrower row spacings may be possible. Sprague is studying the differences between row widths of 30, 20 and 15 inches.

Growers will be able to learn more about Sprague’s research findings and how they can implement the resulting recommendations in the 2008 crop at Extension grower meetings this winter.

Sprague also plans to incorporate the information into future MSU weed control guides.

In 2005, Michigan growers produced nearly $111.2 million worth of sugar beets on 154,000 acres.

Michigan is one of the top sugar beet producing states in the United States, which is the third largest sugar beet producing nation in the world, behind Russia and France.

Weed control research studies in sugar beets began in 2002 with Project GREEEN-funded research that reduced the number of applications of herbicides by measuring the growing degree-days to the timing of the applications.

The research improved weed control by using fewer applications, but the results were not consistent from year to year.

“We decided the next step was to use the new technology available and explore new options to help reduce weeds,” Sprague said.

Founded in 1997, Project GREEEN (Generating Research and Extension to meet Economic and Environmental Needs) is the state’s plant agriculture initiative at Michigan State University.

It is a cooperative effort between plant-based commodities and businesses together with the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, MSU Extension and the Michigan Department of Agriculture to advance Michigan’s economy through its plant-based agriculture.

Its mission is to develop research and educational programs in response to industry needs, ensure and improve food safety, and protect and preserve the quality of the environment.

To learn more about Michigan’s plant agriculture initiative at MSU, visit www.greeen.msu.edu

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:57 AM | Permalink

Check Biotech
November 20, 2007

A leading CSIRO scientist says there is no reason to fear that future gene technology will threaten food safety. Deputy chief of plant industry research, Dr TJ Higgins, says consumers have been using oil from genetically modified cotton for the past 10 years.

The Northern Territory Government banned the growing of genetically modified cotton in 2003 due to community concern.

But Dr Higgins says genetically modified cotton uses at least 85 per cent less pesticide than normal cotton.

He says the community is recognising the role gene technology can play in slashing the environmental footprint of agricultural production.

"It is controversial but I noticed on the surveys that are being done now that consumers are much more accepting of the technology," he said.

"They see it as providing certainty to some of the manmade problems that have occurred.

"I see a change in both consumers' attitudes and farmers' attitudes to technology. It is now a lot more acceptable."

Strict regulations

Dr Higgins says there are many other popular genetically modified foods, and strict regulations protect consumer food safety.

"Most of our fish and chips that we eat in fact are cooked in the oil from cotton seed," he said.

"So we already do and have been consuming food from genetically modified cotton.

"The regulator has also approved 33 other foods for consumption.

"So there are already many products that are in the food chain that we have been consuming safely."

Dr Higgins says genetic modification could revolutionise tropical fruit industries such as mangoes, Asian vegetables and livestock production.

"Gene technology could play a major role in the Territory in terms of improving animal breeding, or even in terms of crop production like vegetables and fruit trees," he said.

"This is a technology that can be applied in the Territory and can enhance the Territories reputation as a producer of affordable and safe food."

Source: Check Biotech

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:45 AM | Permalink

AgBios
By Alok Jha
November 16, 2007

Genetically modified plants which produce essential omega-3 fish oils could be the only way to ensure people get enough of these nutrients, according to a major EU-funded study. The plants, which would be used as feed for farm animals, could increase omega-3 in human diets without adding to pressure on rapidly declining fish stocks.

Long-chain fatty acids called EPA and DHA, found mainly in oily fish such as tuna, salmon and mackerel, can give protection against cardiovascular diseases and slow mental decline in elderly people and are essential for the healthy development of a baby's brain in the womb.

Experts recommend that we eat about 450mg of omega-3 oils every day, but most adults manage barely half that amount. Among teenagers, the figure drops to just 100mg a day. Low-income families get about 50mg a day less than average. To address the health problems that could result from a lack of these essential fatty acids, a five-year EU-funded project called Lipgene brought together almost 200 scientists and economists to look for ways to increase the levels of the oils in people's diets. An analysis carried out for the project found that the costs of increasing omega-3 consumption across Europe would be paid back many times over in reduced healthcare costs.

Ian Givens, of the University of Reading, one of the Lipgene scientists, said that part of the answer lay in increasing omega-3 fish oils in popular foods. Only 30% of Britons regularly eat oily fish, but 80% eat poultry. "The target we set ourselves was for a 200g portion of meat to contain 300mg of EPA and DPA together - we've achieved that. If that strategy was adopted on a widespread basis, that poultry meat in the amounts it's currently consumed would provide the population with 120-130mg a day."

Givens increased the omega-3 levels in his chickens by adding the oils, taken from fish, to their feed. However, this method may not be sustainable given the depletion of fish stocks around the world.

Johnathan Napier, of Rothamsted Research Institute in Hertfordshire, said that the only sustainable way to increase omega-3 in people's diets was to turn to GM technology. "There are no naturally occurring plant species that have the capacity to synthesise these long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, which is why we have to take the GM route - there is no alternative."

EPA and DHA are normally made by microscopic marine algae which are then eaten by small fish, passing the fatty acids into the food chain. Napier took genes from algae and inserted them into linseed and oilseed rape crops so that these produced the oils. The GM plants can be used as feed for chickens or other animals. Napier said that fields of GM crops for animal feed could be grown within five years.

Another advantage would be a source of fish oils free from mercury contamination. The scientists said concerns among the public about GM crops would need to be addressed, but Givens was confident of support. "When the issues about sustainability of fish oils and the worldwide picture becomes clearer, and also when people are able to see what the benefits to them are, I suspect mindsets will change."

Napier said that environmentalists would need to consider the sustainability aspect. "If you're reducing the pressure on natural fish stocks, that's got to be a benefit. You can't always be a nay-sayer, you've got to come up with a positive solution."

Source: AgBios

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:28 PM | Permalink

Mexican National Autonomous University (UNAM) to Supervise GM Commodity Trade for Mexico

Abstract: Members discussed an announcement by the USDA that a Mexican university would take over supervision of trade in GM commodities, specifically for GM corn. The announcement notes that the “Mexican National Autonomous University (UNAM) will be in charge of supervising the flow of transgenic products into Mexico after winning the bid launched by the Mexican Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS).” One member questioned whether this was a positive or negative development knowing the past actions of the university. Another member confirmed who was going to be in charge of the program at the University and speculated that if she just focuses on the science of it the US biotech industry should be fine. He did note, however that if pressured by activist she may just go along with them.

Source: Truth about Trade & Technology

Genetically Modified Rice in Question in China, GM or Not?

Abstract: Members discuss an article on genetically modified rice developed in China to help diabetes patients. One member asks if this would be considered agricultural biotechnology. Several members discussed the validity of this story, asking how a genetically modified rice crop could gain such rapid approval. It was finally concluded that this was not genetically modified rice, but rather rice that has been conventionally breed to help with the digestion process.

Source: Truth about Trade & Technology

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 4:58 PM | Permalink

Truth about Trade & Technology
By Terry Wanzek
November 16, 2007

The drought now choking the Southeastern United States is a slow-motion natural disaster. Officials in Atlanta say they could run out of water by January. The governor of Georgia is asking for prayers. “The only solution is rain,” says his spokesman. “And the only place we get that is from a higher power.”

Farmers understand the threat of drought. It’s one of our biggest fears, partly because we have no control over it. You can be the best farmer in the world, but if the skies don’t release rain, nothing will grow.

The problem afflicting Georgia and its neighbors is severe--the worst drought in a century, say the experts. Other parts of the world are experiencing their own problems. In Australia, farmers are in the seventh year of the worst drought that anyone Down Under can recall. They’re calling it the “Big Dry.”

There won’t ever come a time when crops won’t need water. But if biotechnology is allowed to reach its full potential, there may come a time when crops need less water than they do now. Drought-resistant crops are on the scientific horizon. They can become a reality soon--but only if we make a determined effort to develop them.

In truth, biotechnology already has improved the ability of crops to survive dry spells. Herbicide-resistant plants prevent the growth of weeds, which suck moisture from our fields. As a result, these biotech-derived plants can get by with a bit less access to water than the crops of just a generation ago.

What’s more, because GM crops make it possible to farm without constant plowing, our fields don’t suffer from nearly as much soil erosion as they once did. If my ancestors had access to the same crop technologies that I use today, they might not have suffered from the Dust Bowl catastrophes of the 1930s, when dust storms aggravated drought conditions and led to what may be the worst decade in the history of American agriculture.

That period generated at least one great work of literature--The Grapes of Wrath--but it also produced untold suffering in the heartland. Biotechnology virtually guarantees that there won’t be a sequel to John Steinbeck’s famous book.

The practice of crop rotation also can lend a helping hand, so long as one of the crops in rotation is genetically enhanced. That’s because the effects of herbicide-resistant plants on a particular field can be felt beyond a single season. When I grow GM soybeans in a field that sprouted GM corn a year earlier, I know that it will have a little extra success at fending off weeds, and therefore surviving with a little less moisture.

All of these benefits, however, are secondary--you might call them weed control’s unintended consequences, albeit of the positive variety. In the future, we should use biotechnology to tackle the problem of drought head on. It should be the intended consequence of research.

The next step is to produce plants that don’t merely have improved access to water, but to produce crops that use the water they receive more efficiently. For them, drought resistance would be a fundamental trait.

According to some timetables, drought-resistant versions of corn and soybeans may become available within five years or so. What we really need, however, is drought-resistant wheat, because wheat is grown in areas more likely to experience the stress of drought. Unfortunately, seed companies by and large have abandoned the effort to develop GM varieties of drought-resistant wheat because of concerns about the consumer reaction.

I don’t know why consumers would resist GM wheat when they’ve so readily accepted GM corn and soybeans--crops that find their way into something we eat just about every day.

It would be best if we could think logically about the incredible promise of drought-resistant crops and make a clear-headed commitment to their development. And it would be a shame if, before making this necessary decision, we waited until a crisis came to wheat country--a crisis that we might lessen or even avoid through the smart application of biotechnology right now.

Rain may come from a higher power--but biotechnology, though arguably a gift from God, comes from our own brain power. We should set our minds to taking advantage of it.

Terry Wanzek grows corn, soybeans, and wheat on his family farm in North Dakota.
Mr. Wanzek serves as a North Dakota Senator and board member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org)

Source: Truth about Trade & Technology

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:10 AM | Permalink

ABC Rural
November 13, 2007

One of the world's leading wheat breeders believes GM crops are not only safe, but hold the key to helping farmers cope with drought conditions and global warming.

Ian Edwards has worked as a plant breeder and genetic researcher for 42 years and says he is fed up having to de-bunk myths put forward by anti-GM lobbyists.

Dr Edwards wants governments to get behind GM technology, so it can be used to help farmers make money and look after the environment.

"Frankly genes for drought tolerance in our crops are going to become vital to us here in Australia," he says.

"We have a real salinity problem and GM has some very real options in salt tolerance.

"These are the kinds of things we are going to see a lot more of and in fact the environment is a major concern and actually it's also one of the major reasons for a change in public opinion attitudes significantly over the last year".

Source: ABC Rural

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:00 AM | Permalink

ASK-FORCE Created by AgBioWorld Member

Abstract: Members discuss the creation of “Ask-Force,” hosted on the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) site, which serves as a forum to publish frequently asked questions that refer to publications that are either not supported by properly peer reviewed scientific research. The topics of the first three articles were posted and members suggested additional topics for the future.

ASK-FORCE Web site

Jeffrey Smith Coming to Australia

Abstract:One AgBioWorld member asked for other members to contributed information on Jeffrey Smith that can be distributed at a biotechnology debate in Australia that he is taking part in. Several members posted commentary on a blog post that appeared on Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News’ Biotech Blog which refers to Jeffrey Smith’s allegations that GM food is not safe.

Members Discuss Credibility of Nature Biotechnology Article Author

Abstract: Members criticize the author of an article titled “A different perspective on GM food,” David Shubert. The article appeared in Nature Biotechnology and was reposted by a blogger. One member commented that he appeared to be “a nut” but since he has professional affiliation he is taken seriously.

Source: Mindfully.org

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 3:39 PM | Permalink