GMO Food for Thought

Pope’s Message Positive Towards Biotechnology

Abstract: A member posted a link to an excerpt of the Pope’s "Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace." The member noted that this was a positive piece and encouraged others to distribute it widely. He pulled on a specific quote from the piece that he felt best represented the positive aspect of the message.

"We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and
women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the
good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously,
are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the
environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more
important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to
be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations
also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature
the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves."

Source: Vatican Web site

Norman Borlaug Nominated as Possible Washington Post “Noblest People of the Year”

Abstract: A member posted a link and short excerpt from a Technology Review article on the accomplishments of Norman Borlaug, founder of modern biotechnology. The article discusses his first attempts at breading a better wheat crop. The article also discusses the criticism he received from around the world. In response to this article another member posted a link to a Washington Post contest, Noblest People of the Year, in which Borlaug is part of. Readers of the Washington Post have been asked to pick three from the list. The member encouraged fellow members to vote for Borlaug.

Sources: Technology Review
Washington Post

Books as a Holiday Gift

Abstract: Members discussed the idea of giving books as a holiday gift for the person who “has everything.” One member suggested the book “On Bullshit” by Harry G. Frankfurt. He notes that while giving books as a gift can be “iffy” this book is only 67 pages long and since it is hard-bound, “it will look good on any shelf.” Another member suggested the book "Bad Thoughts", by Jamie Whyte.

Resources:
Bad Thoughts on Amazon
On Bullshit on Amazon

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 3:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Italian GM Field Trials Suppression Discussion Continues

Abstract: Members continue to discuss the suppression of findings from Italian GM field trials. The main topic of discussion continues to be the lack of coverage the story is receiving in the English speaking world. One member did post a number of sites that included articles about the issue, but most are not mainstream media or widely read outside the scientific community. An Italian scientist who is a member also chimed in with his views and noted that scientists from around the world and many scientific journals have been contacting on the issue.

NSW and Victoria, Australia lift bans on GM Crops

Abstract: An Australian AgBioWorld member posted an announcement that New South Wales and Victoria, Australia have both agreed to lift their respective bans on GM crops when the current moratoria ends early in 2008. Another member posted several Australian media articles about the lifting of the bans, with several negative comments about the announcement. Members agreed that while this is a positive development, there is still a chance these deals may fall through. Another member posted an article from the Herald Sun (Melbourne Tabloid) by Andrew Bolt attacking the credibility of popular anti-GM activist Jeffrey Smith. Members noted that while the article put a dent in Smith’s movement, they still have a long way to go.

Sources:

The Age

Sydney Morning Herald

The Weekly Times via GMO Pundit blog

Herald Sun


Organic vs. Conventional Food and Nutritional Value

Abstract: Members discuss the nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food. The original poster noted that while many people believe that more nutrients are present in organic food, in reality the only food that may have more nutritional value, the tomato, does not have a significant amount more. He notes that just by eating another orange or potato, one can get the same amount of extra vitamin C that many organic producers claim is present in organic tomatoes. Many of the members also questioned whether the extra money spent on organic food was really worth the alleged extra nutrients. Members also pointed to an article published by Vivian Moses, Visiting Professor of Biotechnology, King’s College London and Bruce Chassy, Professor of Food Microbiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on this topic.

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 3:36 PM | Permalink

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) posted a new report on their Web site that found genetically modified crops pose no threat to the environment. GMO Africa blogger James Wachai just posted an entry on the report. Read more below.

C.S. Prakash

New study discounts GM crops gene flow theory
GMO Africa
December 16, 2007

There has been an explosive debate on the effects of genetically modified (GM) crops on human health and the environment. Critics, especially the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, have sought to cast GM crops as posing great threat to conventional farming methods. They contend that GM crops haven’t been tested enough and, therefore, threaten the environment and the health of consumers.

There are arguments out there, which haven’t been scientifically verified, that gene flow from GM crops can harm the environment. They have gained traction, courtesy of one or two reports affirming so, but which have been discredited by the scientific community. In 2002, for example, the journal Nature published an article that claimed genetically modified maize under field trials in Mexico had “contaminated” their conventional varieties. Anti-biotech groups celebrated the news, but one year later Nature backtracked on the report. In a statement, the journal said:

In the light of the criticisms and advice from referees, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify its publication of the original paper.

Since then, more and more research reports have been published that show the superficiality of the the so-called GM crops gene flow theory. Last week, for instance, researchers at the University of California - Davis, published a report that shows genes from GM crop plants pose no threat to the environment. The report by Kent Bradford and Pat Bailey appears on the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) web site. CAST is an international consortium of scientists and scientific organizations that promote public understanding of science and technology. A news article on this highly significant report is available on the UC Davis web site.

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:37 PM | Permalink

The biotechnology news site AgBios posted an article this week about Canadian farmers who found that they can earn more money (about $14 a hectare more) by planting GM canola instead of conventional or organic canola. Read the article below and let me know what you think.

C.S. Prakash

Canada GM canola growers $14/ha "better off"
AgBios
December 12, 2007

Canadian farmers are about $14 a hectare better off growing genetically modified canola, says Canola Council of Canada's chairman, Stew Gilroy. Mr Gilroy says the major drivers are lower input costs, especially herbicides, better weed management and better yields - up to 10pc better than conventional varieties available in Canada.

He says the lower costs and higher yields far outweigh the extra cost of the GM technology users agreement paid to the patent holders.

Growers in Canada are roughly split between Monsanto's glyphosate tolerant line and Bayer's glufosinate ammonium tolerant cultivar.

"There is no doubt these technologies offer easier and cheaper alternatives for weed control than conventional varieties," Mr Gilroy says.

He says the thorny issue of weed resistance had not been an issue in Canada. To date there have been no confirmed cases of glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium resistant weeds in the major production area of western Canada.

"The development of resistant weeds is certainly a concern but as we have seen with weeds that are resistant to other classes of chemistry, alternate management options can usually be developed," he says.

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:10 PM | Permalink

The University of California – Davis posted the following article to their Web site earlier. The article highlights a new report released by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). The research found that gene flow from genetically modified crop plants to their wild relatives will have little overall impact on human health or the environment.

C.S. Prakash

Report Says Gene Flow From GM Crops Not Likely to Harm Environment
The University of California – Davis
December 12, 2007

Gene flow from genetically modified crop plants to their wild relatives will have little overall impact on human health or the environment, predicts a team of researchers in a report released today by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.

Gene flow -- the movement of genes from one plant population to another -- has always occurred naturally but has drawn particular attention during the past 10 years, as genetically modified crop plants have moved into commercial production.

"Regulatory requirements and market standards that are specific to crops developed using biotechnology have resulted in much closer monitoring of gene flow than has been done in the past," said plant scientist Kent Bradford, a co-author of the report and director of UC Davis' Seed Biotechnology Center.

"After analyzing a wide range of crop-trait-location combinations, it was determined that relatively few of these combinations present the potential for gene flow to adversely affect the environment or human health," Bradford said. "Gene flow within a given crop can result in economic impacts for specific markets but these can be managed through proven strategies that make it possible for genetically modified crops and nonbiotech crops to co-exist."

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:48 PM | Permalink

David Tribe, a fellow blogger based in Australia posted a press release this week from Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. The biotechnology company announced that it has successfully completed its first drought tolerance technology field trial. They found that plants that were engineered for drought-tolerance achieved significantly higher yields than the control plants under induced-drought conditions, and similar yields under non-drought conditions. Check out the press release below.

C.S. Prakash

Drought tolerant crops from Arcadia Biosciences
GMO Pundit
December 11, 2007

Arcadia Biosciences, Inc., an agricultural technology company focused on products that benefit the environment and human health, today announced the successful completion of its first drought tolerance technology field trial. Results of the trial demonstrated that plants engineered for drought-tolerance achieved significantly higher yields than the control plants under induced-drought conditions, and similar yields under non-drought conditions.

Arcadia’s drought-tolerance program fits squarely with the company’s portfolio of agronomic traits – including nitrogen use efficiency and salt-tolerance – all of which promote production efficiency and benefit the environment. These traits also help reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint while enabling agricultural food production to adapt to climate change.

“Global warming and diminishing availability of fresh water resources are two of the most critical environmental issues our planet faces. Development of crops that can thrive using significantly less water can have a massive positive impact on food production as we wrestle with our growing global population, the reduction in available farmland, and a warming planet,” said Eric Rey, president and CEO of Arcadia. “This technology can also be combined with our Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Salt Tolerance technologies to create hardier plants while reducing environmental impacts.”

The drought-tolerant technology was developed by an international team of researchers and led by the University of California, Davis. The University of California has filed a patent application on this technology. The patent application is pending in the United States and in a number of foreign countries. The patent rights are covered by an exclusive arrangement between the University of California and Arcadia. Results from lab and greenhouse trials by the University of California, Davis were published in the November 27 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:05 PM | Permalink

Want to learn more about the benefits of genetically modified crops to small-scale, subsistence farmers in developing countries. Monsanto just issued this press release that links to a video on their Web site on this issue. Click on the link below for more information.

C.S. Prakash

Experts agree on need for GM crops in developing countries
Check Biotech
December 11, 2007

St. Louis, MO - In a new online video and podcast released today, eight globally recognized and distinguished experts discuss how GM crops are able to deliver significant benefits to small-scale, subsistence farming operations in developing countries and emphasize the need to expand the availability of this farming technology in these areas of the world.

“Here is a technology that is not only scale neutral, but delivers more benefits to the poor,” says Dr. Clive James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). “For example, in the U.S., you would expect, on average, to increase productivity by five percent. If you use Bt maize … in the Philippines, that increase is 40 percent.”

Economic research to date does not support the widely held perception that agricultural biotechnology benefits only large farms. A 2006 review of peer-reviewed research by Dr. Terri Raney, senior economist of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), summarizes that the technology may be “pro-poor,” and concludes that economic results to-date suggest that farmers in developing countries can benefit from transgenic crops.

“What they typically require is a kind of an empowering tool, which allows them to reduce uncertainties, get greater incomes, and also to be able to invest more in their own households, as well as on the farm. What biotechnology enables them is precisely this,” says Dr. Laveesh Bhandari, economist and director of Indicus Analytics in India, who recently studied the impact of this new technology in farming on households and communities in India.

Read more…

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:27 PM | Permalink

I ran across a great article this weekend. Titled “Growing GM canola a smart move,” the author discusses the current debate in Australia surrounding genetically modified canola.

C.S. Prakash

Growing GM canola a smart move
The Grapevine
December 08, 2007

Last week, the State Government of Victoria announced that the five-year moratorium on the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) canola would be lifted in early 2008. New South Wales has also announced that it will lift its ban. South Australia is expected to follow soon whilst Tasmania wants to maintain its prohibition. The lifting of the moratorium is a highly controversial decision, but one that I welcome.

This story goes back to 2003 when the Commonwealth Government’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) approved the cultivation of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor® and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus) for commercial oil production. In response, most Australian states (which have constitutional authority over agriculture) imposed 5-year moratoria on the basis that the economic and environmental risk was still unknown.

This was a sensible decision because it permitted more scientific and economic research to be conducted and for the community and farmers to express their concerns to government and industry.

Read More…

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:46 PM | Permalink

Food Navigator
December 05, 2007

The genetically modified LLRice62 poses no evident harm to humans, animals or the environment, according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

German chemicals company Bayer CropScience applied for the placing of the GM rice on the market for food and feed uses, but not for cultivation, in August 2004. Following extensive scientific assessment, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms has now released its opinion.

"LLRice62 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health or on the environment in the context of its intended uses," said the report.

The European Commission will now put the decision on whether the rice will be made available on the European market in the hands of the relevant committee.

The genetic modification intends to provide tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.

The EFSA board concluded that the labelling proposal in the application is also in line with the EU requirements, saying that GM LLRice62 is compositionally and phenotypically equivalent to its non-genetic equivalent except for the introduced traits.

Spokesperson for Beyer, Annette Josten, told FoodNavigator.com: "We are pleased with the recent announcement. We believe that our herbicide-tolerant rice could contribute significantly to increasing rice productivity in certain global markets, both in terms of quality and yield."

Despite the opinion from EFSA, it may be some time before the rice appears on the market - if at all.

Adeline Farrelly, communications director at EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, said that such decision-making processes can prove lengthy.

She said: "There are many products that have gained approval worldwide but that are still stuck in the European system. These are traders' crops and so the slow process causes problems for them and results in a shortage of supplies for Europe."

It is already approved for import and cultivation in the US and Canada, but has not been commercialised there.

The committees often have difficulties reaching a majority decision, as with the issue on the European Commission proposal to lift Austria's restrictions on the import and processing two types on GM maize - MON 810 and T25.

The last GM product to be approved for cultivation in Europe was in 1998. Some genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been approved since then for import, but only very slowly.

Farelly added: "We believe the Commission should accept it responsibility and sort out the backlog of products waiting for approval."

Earlier this year, Greenpeace filed a petition against the use of Bayer's LLRice62 for food, animal feed and processing.

Green agencies have concerns about the unknown impact GMOs may have on the environment, particularly in regards to cross-contamination.

"The long term effects of GM crops have not been properly researched and, by cross-pollinating with non-GM crops and wild plants, they replicate themselves and contaminate the environment with genetic pollution that is impossible to clean up," said Greenpeace.

Friends of the Earth Food campaigner Richard Hines said: "Time and time again consumers have made it clear that they don't want to eat GM food. But if Bayer's LLRice62 is given approval, people across Europe will face the prospect of finding GM rice on their plates."

He added: "Switching to GM has been disastrous for many farmers, but a green light in Europe would give Bayer the go-ahead to push for GM rice cultivation in the developing world. It is therefore vital that Commission doesn't forget the worldwide health, environmental and social impacts of their decision."

Source: Food Navigator

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:14 AM | Permalink

Truth about Trade & Technology
December 05, 2007

NSW farmers will be able to grow genetically modified (GM) canola crops from March next year after the coalition supported the government's move to overturn a four-year ban on the practice.

But the NSW Greens, who opposed the amendment bill and tried to have it changed, have attacked The Nationals, saying the party had failed its own constituents.

Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald last week announced the government would overturn the ban imposed on GM canola crops in 2003.

An expert committee will also be established to assess whether the industry is prepared and capable of segregating GM and non-GM crops.

Mr Macdonald said the move was designed to give farmers a choice and the bill passed the upper house early on Wednesday with coalition support.

"A number of other groups have clearly supported the government's approach," Mr Macdonald told parliament.

"It has not only been a few of us to take this decision. The National Farmers' Federation has strongly supported the lifting of the moratorium in NSW and Victoria."

Opposition frontbench upper house MP Duncan Gay said the bill was sneaky but he had to support it as the ban on GM canola would expire on March 3 without the establishment of the expert committee.

"The sneaky part of this bill is that if members are opposed to GM, and do not want the moratorium to stop, they should be able to oppose the bill and that would happen," Mr Gay told parliament.

"However, if we oppose this bill, all that will happen is that on March 3 next year farmers in NSW will have carte blanche to do what they like, as is the situation in Victoria."

Greens MP Ian Cohen tried to have the moratorium extended until July 2011 and an amendment on strict liability that he said would shift the burden of responsibility of GM contamination onto biotech companies.

Both amendments were voted down, with the Greens failing to gain support from the opposition or the other minor parties.

Mr Cohen said that in not offering their support, the Nationals had failed farmers.

"It's a depressing sign of the times that the politicians elected to represent rural NSW have so utterly abandoned their own support base - the Nats have failed their core constituency," Mr Cohen said.

He said the introduction of GM canola crops would be a loss for farmers, consumers and the environment.

Source: Truth about Trade & Technology

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:11 AM | Permalink

Farmers Weekly Interactive
by Paul Spackman
December 02, 2007

Genetically Modified (GM) crops could be accepted across Europe in less than 10 years, despite the UK government’s “shameful” reluctance at present.

That was the prediction of Cranfield University’s Sean Rickard, speaking at the British Potato 2007 conference in Harrogate (28 November).

“Biotechnology is the next big technology driver in the world and the only way we can respond to the challenges of climate change is through GM. It is shameful of our government that we now lag behind the rest of the world.”

But the government had not dismissed the technology completely and public acceptance was increasing, he said. “In the next two or three years consumers will be prepared to experiment with GM. Once consumers and supermarkets stances’ change, things will move very quickly.”

The University of London’s Sir Colin Berry agreed. “Hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been eating GM crops for the best part of 15 years now, with no ill effects. Most questions have been answered and we’re ignoring a lot of positive things GM can offer.” The economic cost of not adopting GM technology had already been estimated at £2-3bn, but the UK had also lost much of its scientific expertise in this area to other non-European countries, he said.

Mr Rickard said the general public had an “irrational fear” of GM technology, whipped up by the media, and it was down to the farming industry and scientists to educate people about the benefits it could deliver. This was particularly relevant given a predicted 50% increase in world population by 2050, pressure to find alternatives to oil and the impact climate change could have on global cropping.

The growth in ‘ethical food’ such as organic and Fair Trade lines could prove to be a limiting factor in the uptake of GM food by consumers – in the short term at least. Premium markets are worth around £15bn per year and expected to grow to £20bn in five years time, which would outperform the broader grocery market, said IGD chief economist James Walton.

Some 83% of households bought something organic last year and the Fair Trade market alone was worth £250m per year.

“Until recently ethical food tended to be the preserve of hippies and eccentrics, but ethics have become mainstream and consumers are a lot more aware of the effects of their buying decisions.” Much of this had been driven by the media, he said. “Media interest in good eating has never been stronger. Suppliers have real potential to prosper.”

Crops that required little or no processing, such as dairy, eggs, fruit and vegetables, were most likely to be bought by ‘ethical shoppers’ as there was a clear association with the grower and land, he added.

Will the pressure to secure food supplies convince UK consumers to accept GM technology? Tell us what you think at www.fwi.co.uk.

Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive

Posted by CS Prakash at 8:54 AM | Permalink