GMO Food for Thought

The following commentary by Henry I Miller was published in the Washington Post this week on the rejection of genetically modified products by much of Europe. The commentary mentions that the European Commission recently ruled that GM animal feed would not be allowed into the European Union, despite claims that the livestock industry would be “slaughtered” if something wasn’t done. The piece also includes background on the approval process of new GM products in Europe.

C.S. Prakash

Agricultural trade squeals
Washington Times
February 29, 2008

European Union officials adamantly refuse to let the World Trade Organization save them from themselves.

Despite a 2005 WTO ruling that some European countries were breaking international trade rules by prohibiting the importation of gene-spliced, or "genetically modified (GM)," crops and foods, Europe remains recalcitrant, unrepentant — and on the verge of slaughtering its own livestock industry.

European Union agriculture ministers failed yet again Monday to permit imports of five biotech crops intended for animal feed, causing a group that represents European farmers to warn that without greater use of gene-spliced crops, the livestock industry could be decimated.

European shortages of grain for animal feed and soaring prices — caused by both the rejection of gene-spliced grains and the diversion of corn to production of ethanol for fuel — are causing panic among livestock producers. Pig and poultry farmers have been forced to reduce their output, while consumer consumption is down because of higher prices.

Although the WTO bluntly scolded the EU for imposing a moratorium on gene-spliced crop approvals from 1998 to 2004, that finding was a foregone conclusion. European politicians, including then-EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem, had acknowledged that the moratorium was "an illegal, illogical, and otherwise arbitrary line in the sand."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:12 AM | Permalink

I ran across the following post today on the development of drought-tolerant crops. The author does not appear to take a stance on the subject, and pulls much of his information from this BBC article, which describes what researchers are working on and how it will help in times of drought.

C.S. Prakash

Drought Resistant Plants Could Fight Global Warming and World Hunger
Environmental Graffiti
February 28, 2008

There are a variety of reasons for this, from fear of potential negative health effects to anger at the Monsanto corporation’s business policies with the patented seeds. But there are other groups who fully support GMO crops and research, citing the benefit to the world’s hungry brought about by plants with increased nutritional value and ability to grow in harsh circumstances.

I’m interested to see how both camps react to the newest announcement in GMO crops. U.S. and Finnish researchers recently announced the discovery of the plant gene that controls the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed and water released by a plant.

In practical terms, this means a plant that could both survive in severe drought conditions AND help fight global warming effects.

The gene they discovered controls the tiny pores known as stomata that are located on the leaves of plants. They play a crucial role in photosynthesis, as the plant absorbs carbon dioxide gas through these pores. Water vapor is also released through the stomata as the plant grows.

The researchers, writing in the journal Nature, say the discovery may allow them to genetically modify a plant that will continue absorbing CO2, and possibly even absorb more, but release less water vapor. As plants lose 95% of their water through the stomata, this would mean a plant that could survive in extremely dry conditions.

As it stands now, droughts are one of the most destructive natural forces on the planet when it comes to agriculture. In impoverished areas where many subsistence farmers are growing just to survive, a drought can destroy not only crops but lives. Many drought stricken areas are also areas of extreme poverty and hunger, so a drought resistant crop could help food production rates rise and hunger drop.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:53 PM | Permalink

I found the following commentary in AgriMarketing Magazine on the growing acceptance of biotechnology in the baking industry. The author notes that a few years ago there was a lot of resistance for genetically modified wheat because bakers and millers believed that genetic engineering only benefited the farmer. However now, with more and more farmers switching to GM corn and/or soybeans and away from the less profitable wheat crop, bakers and millers are seeing prices rise and are starting to realize the importance of the technology.

C.S. Prakash

Bakers starting to see folly of rejecting biotechnology
AgriMarketing
February 28, 2008

OpEd written By PAUL AASNESS, who farms near Fergus Falls, MN, is a board member of Growers for Biotechnology (www.growersforbiotechnology.org)

Despite the fact that most wheat farmers have welcomed the advent of biotechnology, end users have not been so supportive.

The end user, especially millers and bakers, argued that the advantages gained with biotechnology were for the growers' benefit only. They made it clear that they were not interested in purchasing commodities that were genetically modified -- especially wheat.

It seems now, however, that the tide may be turning. The milling and baking industry is suddenly realizing that the sky-high cost and critically short supply of wheat is directly related to the absence of efficient technologies in wheat.

Farmers, including myself, have seen huge advantages in growing biotech corn and soybeans. Many of us have reduced our wheat acres steadily in the past 10 years since biotech corn and soybeans became available. Control of pests such as corn borer and corn rootworm and superior weed control with Roundup Ready corn and soybeans have been welcomed with open arms wherever they have been tried. Today, 73 percent of the corn and 91 percent of the soybean acres in the United States have one or more biotech traits. All this has taken place in a little over 10 years since biotech seeds were first available to us. It's hard to justify fighting to produce wheat when it's much more efficient and profitable to produce a biotech crop.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:59 PM | Permalink

Despite calls to maintain a ban on genetically modified canola in the Australian state of Victoria, the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) is sticking by its endorsement. The following ABC News article quotes VFF president Simon Ramsay as saying that by ending the moratorium of GM grain farmers will have more choices and can take advantage of new technology.

C.S. Prakash

VFF says GM crops give farmers 'choice'
ABC News
February 27, 2008

The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) is countering calls from anti-genetically modified (GM) food groups for the Government to maintain its ban on genetically modified canola.

The moratorium on GM canola expires in Victoria tomorrow, allowing seed and chemical companies to start selling their patented seeds.

Anti-GM groups are concerned conventional crops will be contaminated, and that herbicide resistant canola will become an environmental weed.

VFF president Simon Ramsay says farmers will be able to start the accreditation process to grow and sell GM grain under licence.

"What's important now with the sun setting here in Victoria tomorrow is that farmers will be able to have that choice, they'll be able to take advantage of the new technology," he said.

"It not only has good economic outcomes, but it has good environmental outcomes and that's important given that farmers are facing the challenge of climate change."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 12:47 PM | Permalink

The Environmental News Network posted an article announcing that South Korea will begin importing genetically modified corn from the US for manufacturing starch and sweeteners. This will be the first time South Korea has imported GM products, as there is an enormous opposition for them in the country. According to the article, trade sources say this move was economical, as conventional corn costs around $50 a ton more than genetically modified corn.

C.S. Prakash

South Korea breaks GMO taboo with first corn deal
Environmental News Network
February 26, 2008

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea has for the first time bought genetically-modified corn for food, risking a backlash from consumer groups to secure cheaper grains.

With record high global wheat, corn and other food prices making governments increasingly anxious about staple supplies and quickening inflation, the debate over the merits and safety of GMO crops is taking on new urgency.

On Tuesday South Korea, one of only two countries in Asia to stick with more expensive non-GMO corn for food use, said it will import 50,000 tons of U.S. genetically-altered corn in May for manufacturing starch and sweeteners.

Trade sources said the decision was economic. Corn that has not been modified costs around $50 a ton more than the genetically-altered variety, an important factor when corn prices have more than doubled in the last two years.

But it has drawn ire from consumer groups, who say it will expose consumers to possible health risks, echoing European resistance to what lobby groups there call "Frankenstein foods."

"If the companies go ahead with the move the groups will join hands and carry out campaigning and boycott products from those manufacturers," said spokesman Kim Dae-hoon of ICOOP, South Korea's largest consumer lobby group.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:58 PM | Permalink

UK May Soon Conceal Locations of GM Crops

Abstract: The Guardian posted an article on the possibility that Britain may soon be concealing the locations of GM crop field trials. This is in response to requests by biotechnology companies that field trial location information is too easily made available to activists who burn these fields in protest.

Source: The Guardian (UK)

India Supreme Court Allows GM Field Trial Submissions

Abstract: The Supreme Court in New Delhi ruled last week that biotechnology companies may seek permission from the regulatory body - Genetic Engineering Advisory Committee (GEAC) - for fresh trials, including open field trials of new GM crops. Members commented that this is great news and provided additional articles reporting on the subject.

Sources: The Times of India
Indian Express
Additional article from The Times of India

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out the following letter to the editor of the Canberra Times in Australia. The author is seeking to correct a previous article on GM canola and its benefits.

C.S. Prakash

Canadian agronomists detail the benefits of GM canola in the ground.
GMO Pundit
February 26, 2008

Dr Rene Van Acker is right to suggest Australia should learn from Canada's experiences regarding genetically modified canola (Look to Canada for GE solutions, February 5, p11).

However, he is less correct in the Canadian lessons he gives. The benefits of herbicide tolerant canola for western Canada have far out weighed the risks over the last 11 years.

A recent study on the impacts of GMHT canola in western Canada carried out by the University of Saskatchewan gives some real life lessons that can be heeded. Results show that 90 per cent of canola farmers report reduced soil erosion and increased soil moisture conservation.

Sixty per cent of growers reported a carry-over benefit to the subsequent crop year in terms of improved weed control, with half of these growers assigning a dollar value of $A13.09, or about the cost of one glyphosate application in Canada. Fifty per cent reported they used no chemicals on crops that followed GMHT canola which had dramatically reduced the volume of chemicals applied to fields.

Canola used to be reserved for the most weed-free fields but is now a crop for difficult fields with weed problems.

In addition to the direct benefits to growers of increased yield and profitability, breeding and crop development activities by private companies has increased dramatically. The result has been more (150) and higher-yielding hybrid variety choices.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:12 PM | Permalink

I just found this article in the UK newspaper The Telegraph. It seems researchers at Open University in the United Kingdom conducted a study that found farmers in the UK are in favor of growing genetically modified crops as long as they provide economic benefits to the farmer. According to the article, the farmers interviewed also felt that GM crops could help produce enough high-quality food to feed the citizens of the UK as the country's climate changes and the population soars. Check out the article below.

C.S. Prakash

UK farmers want to grow GM crops
The Telegraph
February 24, 2008

Farmers are in favour of growing genetically modified crops in Britain despite public fears over their safety, new research has revealed.

An Open University study has found that farmers and farming industry leaders believe GM technology is the only way to produce enough high-quality food as the country's climate changes and the population soars.

Farmers claim that using GM crops will help them cut down on herbicides and pesticides while increasing the amount of food that can be harvested.

But their views contrast with the strong public scepticism over GM foods and fears that the genes artificially introduced into plants could escape into the wild, changing natural plants.

Prof Andy Lane, who led the series of interviews and workshops with 50 farmers and members of farming organisations, said: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum."

The findings come just one week after government officials confirmed they were considering growing GM crops at secret locations to combat vandalism caused by anti-GM campaigners.

Biotechnology companies have warned the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that GM trials have become too expensive to conduct in Britain.

The debate over GM crops was reignited last year by the Government's former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, who claimed opposition to GM technology was leaving Britain at a competitive disadvantage.

Farming leaders also agree that they are suffering as other countries have embraced biotechnology.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:41 PM | Permalink

Science Daily published an article on a study conducted at Open University in the United Kingdom on how farmers feel about genetically modified crops. The research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) found that farmers are actually in favor of GM crops as long as they provide economic benefits to the farmer.

C.S. Prakash

What Farmers Think About GM Crops
Science Daily
February 24, 2008

Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

A group at the Open University, led by Professor Andy Lane, has taken the first systematic look at what large-scale, commodity farmers -- not those mainly involved in organic growing - think about genetically-modified crops. We know how consumers, governments and the food industry regard GM, but this is the first proper look at the attitudes of the people who would use GM crops.

Lane and his colleagues found that both farmers who have been involved in GM crop trials and those who have not, regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, such as those which have produced today's established crop types. They regard GM crops as an innovation which they would assess on its merits. Their real interest is in how GM crops would work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms. The research suggests that these farmers do not think that GM raises any issues of principle, or that it is a matter of right or wrong.

Professor Lane said: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at once."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:05 PM | Permalink

Reuters recently published the following article on the benefits of genetically modified crops. The article focuses on the need for GM crops at a time when food prices are rising sharply, with no slow down in sight. Read more about this below and then follow the link to read the full article.

C.S. Prakash

Pioneer sees GMOs gaining global market acceptance
Reuters
February 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rising food prices will encourage worldwide acceptance of genetically engineered crops as more consumers set aside health concerns for the lower prices that biotech crops may deliver, a leading seed company executive said.

Governments that have been slow to accept biotech crops, or GMOs, will find it increasingly difficult to deny access to the technologies as food costs are poised to continue climbing.

"The only way we're going to meet some of these demand expectations that we have and are going to have in the future is through improved productivity. A lot of that productivity will come through technology," said Paul Shickler, president of Pioneer Hi-Bred International and vice president of DuPont Co (DD.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

U.S. food prices rose by a 17-year high of 4 percent last year and were seen rising by another 3 to 4 percent in 2008. Food inflation was expected to outpace the general inflation rate through 2010, the U.S. Agriculture Department forecast.

Global food prices have risen even faster and will continue to do so, economists said.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 12:57 PM | Permalink

Truth about Trade & Technology board member Reg Clause posted a commentary this week about the ISAAA report. His comments on the benefits of biotechnology and the response by advocacy group Friends of the Earth are posted below. Take a look at let me know what you think.

C.S. Prakash

The Farmers Choice
Truth about Trade & Technology
February 22, 2008

I noticed a news headline the other day, “Biotech reports spark debate over potential benefits.” I discovered two things upon reading the article. 1) Utilization of biotech crops is growing in double digits annually, increasing global productivity substantially, reducing poverty by helping farmers and keeping food affordable, reducing the environmental impacts of farming and contributing to the potential for cost effective biofuels. All backed up by objective evidence. 2) A group called “Friends of the Earth” will have none of this and take issue with the report line by line; generally backing up their statements with all-to-familiar spin and bluster.

Now, in regards to the “Friends” mentioned above, I couldn’t help thinking of a line from a comedian I once heard. He said, “some people are afraid of heights. Not me, I’m afraid of widths.”

I mean, really, there is no amount of good news that will satisfy some folks.

Check out the new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), which determines the global area of biotech crops each year. The latest one, covering 2007, was just released. It tells a now familiar story of rapid growth in the use of biotech and the totally positive impacts on the environment and people’s lives.

Twelve million farmers in 23 countries were responsible for this achievement, up from 10.3 million in 21 countries in 2006. The number of biotech acres they planted increased by 12 percent from a year before. The newest members of the GM club are Chile and Poland.

Farmers in the United States accounted for about half of the world’s biotech acres. Growers in South America--mainly Argentina and Brazil, plus Paraguay and Uruguay--planted about one-third of the total. Canada, India, China, and South Africa also devoted substantial acreage to GM crops.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:21 AM | Permalink

North Dakota’s Grand Forks Herald posted the following commentary from Bruce Freitag. The commentary focuses on the need by farmers to adopt new technologies in order to “meet this global demand for food, feed, fiber and fuel.” He specifically cites India and China as countries that are demanding more meat and protein, and many are calling for a new “Green Revolution” and easy access to modern technologies to boost productivity. Read more of this commentary beow.

C.S. Prakash

VIEWPOINT : Our world needs biotech foods
Grand Forks Herald
February 22, 2008

SCRANTON, N.D. - Just before giving up his post as interim U.S. agriculture secretary last month, Chuck Conner warned that growing enough corn, soybeans and wheat to meet food, feed and biofuel demands this year is going to be “very dicey.” We farmers were up to the challenge this year, but many of us are concerned that we will be denied the tools we need for the long run, he noted.

Renewable fuels are a new challenge. Congress has mandated 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels per year by 2022 - a 130 percent increase over current ethanol production levels. Corn-based ethanol is expected to be about 40 percent of that.

Add in the vagaries of climate. Two years ago, drought in France and Spain resulted in the worst corn production in 50 years. In Australia, where drought has been persistent since 2002, some wheat farmers failed to harvest a crop for the first time in 40 years.

Wheat yields were also disappointing in Europe. U.S. corn production was down 5 percent because of drought in 2006, but it rebounded in 2007.

In December, Jacques Diouf, the head of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, warned that people were already starting to go hungry in poor countries because hotter weather was shrinkingthe food supply and pushing up prices.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:51 AM | Permalink

Fellow biotechnology blogger James Wachai posted a new entry on his blog GMO Africa this week on the ISAAA report. His main focus is attempts by anti-biotech advocacy groups to mislead people into thinking that biotech crops are a bad thing. He also discusses the positive aspects of the report.

C.S. Prakash

ISAAA reports a surge in biotech crops cultivation
GMO Africa
February 21, 2008

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has released a report that shows a surge in cultivation of biotech crops. Contrary to many anti-biotech critics, the surge seems to portend biotech crops striking a nerve with farmers.

What’s perhaps more interesting is the fact that developing countries continue to perform as well as developed countries in growing biotech crops. This disambiguates a widely held argument that biotech crops are a preserve of developed countries. On this blog, in August 2006, I argued that smallholder farmers benefit from biotech crops as much as large-scale farmers.

Despite this, sadly, Africa continues to lag behind in the adoption of biotech crops. To the continent, crop genetic engineering remains an enigma. Politics has, unfairly, been infused into this debate. As the rest of the world angles itself to share the spoils of modern agricultural biotechnology, African countries, with the exception of South Africa, are still haggling on whether or not to admit biotech crops to their farms.

The 2007 ISAAA’s latest report, perhaps, sends an unambiguous message that there’s something striking in modern crop genetic engineering that Africa, and other parts of the developing world, can’t afford to ignore. Africa ought to know that a lot of debate swirling around biotech crops, principally, is meant to mislead and confuse. There are groups ought to hijack landmark scientific innovations, especially in the field of agricultural biotechnology, for their own selfish ends. Let’s all take a lesson from the ISAAA report, whose other highlights include:

• Biotech crops cultivation grew by 12%, which translates to 12.3 hectares.
• There are currently about 114.3 million hectares of land under biotech crops.
• The number of countries growing biotech crops increased to 23 from 21 in 2006. The new entrants are Chile and Poland.
• From 1996, when the first biotech crop was commercialized, to 2007, the accumulated hectarage of these crops stands at 690 million hectares.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:27 AM | Permalink

The president of the UK's Food and Drink Federation (FDF), Iain Ferguson, recently gave a speech at the National Farmer's Union Conference in England. Ferguson endorsed genetic modification as a possible solution to the rising food costs and shortages. Read more about this in the following Food Navigator article.

C.S. Prakash

GM may provide solution to rising food prices
Food Navigator
February 20, 2008

The continuing increases in raw material costs could shine a favourable light on genetic modification as pressure mounts in Europe to boost harvests.

Speaking at yesterday's National Farmer's Union Conference, Iain Ferguson, chief executive of Tate & Lyle and president of the UK's Food and Drink Federation (FDF), said British food prices are rising at their fastest rate since records began.

He quoted the Daily Telegraph as saying food prices in the UK are fuelling a rise in the average family's annual shopping bill of £750.

"We have to face up to the issue of genetic modification and rise to the challenge of helping to foster a fair and scientific debate on an issue that has typically been clouded by suspicion and a lack of trust," Ferguson said.

"The current economic climate with rising food prices and concerns over long term availability of commodities may well give us the opportunity to begin to do this."

Farmers have remained cautious to support the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while consumers continue to express concern on their environmental impact and possible long term health risks.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:04 AM | Permalink

Reason Magazine posted a commentary on its blog by science correspondent Ronald Bailey criticizing the recently released Friends of Earth report. The report is highly critical of biotech crops and pesticide use. Bailey instead points to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications’ (ISAAA) report as an example of how biotechnology serves as a “resource [for] poor farmers in developing countries.” Bailey calls Friends of Earth an “ideological environmentalist group” and its recent report “another attack in its misinformation campaign against biotech crops.” Read more of this entry below.

C.S. Prakash

Are Farmers Stupid, or Deluded, or Both?
Reason Magazine
February 19, 2008

Last week, the ideological environmentalist group Friends of the Earth (FOE) launched another attack in its misinformation campaign against biotech crops. FOE's latest salvo is its report "Who Benefits from GM Crops?," issued explicitly to counter the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications' (ISAAA) annual global assessment of biotech crops. FOE claims biotech crops yield less than conventional crops, harm the environment, are technologically stagnant, have done nothing to help poor farmers, and are monopolized by a few giant corporations.

The ISAAA 2007 report on the global status paints a far different picture. The ISAAA notes that farmers around the world continue their rapid adoption of biotech crop varieties. In 2007 the global planting of biotech crops rose to an all time high of 282 million acres, a 12 percent increase over 2006. In addition, the number of farmers choosing to grow biotech crops rose from 10.3 million in 2006 to over 12 million in 2007. The ISAAA report notes that 11 million of the biotech growers are resource poor farmers in developing countries, the majority of whom cultivate insect-resistant cotton. Biotech crops are now planted in 23 countries, and 29 others have approved the import of biotech food and feed.

Let's look at FOE's claims about the alleged faults of biotech crops.

Do biotech crops yield less than conventional crops? FOE is artful in its use of data. Some biotech varieties did initially impose slight yield penalties when compared to conventional varieties. This occurred because breeders improved conventional varieties during the years it took biotech crops to be approved by regulatory agencies. Even so, farmers adopted slightly lower yielding biotech crops because they were cheaper to grow. Biotech crops need fewer pesticide applications and require less plowing. A 2006 study by the British agricutural and food economics consultancy, PG Economics, found no impact from biotech on soy yields while cotton and corn enjoyed higher yields. Even though biotech seeds cost more, overall lower production costs more than make up for the initial expense. The PG Economics report estimates that biotech crops have increased farm incomes by $27 billion since 1996.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 10:18 PM | Permalink

According to the recent report published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications ninety percent of farmers growing genetically modified crops are from developing countries. The report states that 23 countries — 12 of which were developing nations — planted GM crops in 2007. In total, 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide, with 43 percent of the global GM crop area in developing countries. This is great news!

C.S. Prakash

GM production 'growing in developing countries'
SciDev.net
February 18, 2008

Ninety per cent of farmers growing genetically modified (GM) crops are from developing countries, according to a report.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit organisation promoting agricultural biotechnology for the poor, say that GM crops were grown by 11 million small and resource-poor farmers in 2007 — 90 per cent of the total number of GM-growing farmers worldwide.

This was an increase of 18.3 per cent from 2006, when some 9.3 million small farmers were represented.

"With increasing food prices globally, the benefits of biotech crops have never been more important," said Clive James, one of the authors of the report and chairman of the ISAAA, in a press statement.

According to the report, launched last week (13 February), 23 countries — 12 of which were developing nations — planted GM crops in 2007. In total, 114.3 million hectares of GM crops were cultivated worldwide, with 43 per cent of the global GM crop area in developing countries.

In terms of hectarage, the biggest GM producer is still the United States, followed by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:13 AM | Permalink

Germany Makes it “Easier” for Farmers to Plant GM Corn

Abstract: Bloomberg reported that Germany passed legislation that supposedly makes it easier for farmers to plant genetically modified corn, though Monsanto disagrees. The legislation calls for farmers who want to sow MON180 to set a 150 meter ``safety zone'' between the plots growing GM corn and neighbors who've sown regular GM-free corn. “Farmers need to draw up a zone of 300 meters around plots adjacent to organic crops. Farmers will also be obliged to report in an Internet register plans to sow the seeds three months before the April-May planting season.” Monsanto argues that this will make it easier for activists eager to burn down GM crop fields to find them, making farmers more hesitant to plant the genetically modified corn.

Source: Bloomberg

Tear-Free Onions Coming Soon?

Abstract:Scientists in New Zealand and Japan announced that they have created the first “tear-free” onion with the help of genetic modification. The scientist used biotechnology to silence the gene responsible for the enzyme that makes us cry. Colin Eady, the institute's senior scientist, was quoted as saying that they hope that by silencing this gene the compounds normally created will be redirected into compounds responsible for flavor and health. The onion will not, however, be available for 10 to 15 years to consumers.

Source: AFP

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Increases Funding to Improve Agricultural Production

Abstract: A member posted an article from the Puget Sound Business Journal on an announcement Bill Gates made during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last month. Gates announced that his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, would be increasing funding “to improve agricultural production in poor countries around the world.” The majority of the $306 million grant, $164.5 million will go to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) “to help Africa's small farmers increase yields of stable food crops. The grant will focus on improving soil fertility, which could increase crop yields for 4.1 million people.” The remainder of the package, $141.5 million will be divided among five organizations: CARE in Atlanta, Heifer International of Little Rock, Ark., International Development Enterprises of Lakewood, Colo., the International Rice Research Institute based in Manila, and TechnoServe, a rural business development organization based in Washington, D.C. After seeing this article another member posted an article from the Wall Street Journal in which Gates says he was inspired by biotechnology pioneer Norman Borlaug.

Sources: Puget Sound Business Journal
Wall Street Journal (subscription required)

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Domestic Fuel posted an article reporting that the Massachusetts biotechnology company Metabolix Inc. and the Missouri-based Donald Danforth Plant Science Center are teaming up to develop an oilseed that can produce both biodiesel and plastics. The researchers are working to create to genetically modified oilseeds that will produce plastic polymers as they grow. Once harvested, the crop would be broken down into oil for biodiesel refineries and polymers for the production of bioplastics that break down into environmentally friendly waste. Read the article below to learn more.

C.S. Prakash

Growing a Seed for Biodiesel and Plastics
Domestic Fuel
February 8, 2008

A Massachusetts biotechnology company has joined with a Missouri research firm to develop an oilseed that can produce both biodiesel and plastics.

And this story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says Metabolix Inc. and the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center will get some money from the state of Missouri to work on the idea:

“It’s exactly what the civic leadership in St. Louis has been positioning St. Louis and the state to become,” said Rob Monsees, executive director of the Missouri Technology Corp., which gave a $1.14 million state grant to the project. “Metabolix is hopefully the first of many examples of plant biotechnology companies that are going to be finding their way to Missouri.”

Scientists from the company and the Danforth Center are working to genetically modify certain oilseeds to produce plastic polymers as they grow. Once harvested, the crop would be broken down into oil for biodiesel refineries and polymers for the production of bioplastics that break down into environmentally friendly waste.

Bioplastics — plastic derived from plant or microbial sources, rather than petroleum — would provide biodiesel facilities with a valuable co-product that they could sell to offset the cost of producing fuel for autos and trucks.

“This is an opportunity that’s potentially very good in terms of the economics,” said Oliver Peoples, Metabolix co-founder and chief scientific officer.

The work will go on near the Danforth Center near St. Louis with plans to open a pilot plant in 2011.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:57 PM | Permalink

Arcadia Biosciences will begin offering carbon credits to Chinese farmers who plant their rice, according to an article on Treehugger.com. The rice is genetically modified to require less nitrogen fertilizer, which would be less carbon dioxide would be released into the air. Under the Kyoto Treaty, the credits gained from that reduction can then be sold on the global market, bringing extra money to farmers.

C.S. Prakash

Genetically Modified Rice to Fight Global Warming in China
Treehugger.com
February 7, 2008

There are some smart people at Arcadia Biosciences. They not only have created a crop of rice that requires less nitrogen fertilizer, they also figured out a way to work with the Chinese government to allow Chinese farmers to get carbon credits when they use their rice. The reasoning is, less nitrogen fertilizer equals less nitrous oxide emissions (a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide). Under the Kyoto Treaty, the credits gained from that reduction can then be sold on the global market, bringing extra money to farmers. "Swapping global rice supply to the GM version, the company says, would save the equivalent of 50m tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and generate £750m in carbon credits for farmers."

The widespread use of nitrogen fertiliser is reckoned to account for about one-third of agricultural emissions. Less than half the nitrogen is typically absorbed by crops, with the rest leaking into the soil and water supplies, or released to the air as nitrous oxide. The Arcadia technology inserts a gene that improves the nitrogen uptake, which means less fertiliser is needed to produce a given yield of crop.

From our point of view, this is a good thing as long as everything is completely and thoroughly tested for safety. Maybe if the choice was "perfect world" vs "GM crop", we wouldn't be in favor of it. But as things stand, our atmosphere could use less nitrous oxide, our water could use less nitrogen runoffs, Chinese farmers could use more money and biotech firms should get the signal that developing eco-beneficial crops is a good idea. Not to mention that most nitrogen fertilizer is made from fossil fuels (natural gas).

Arcadia is working to apply the improved nitrogen-absorption technology to GM wheat, rape seed oil, sugarbeet, maize, sugarcane, cotton and turf for golf courses and landscape gardening.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:04 PM | Permalink

I ran across this article on David Tribe’s blog, GMO Pundit. Australia’s ABC News reported that genetically modified bananas will be field tested in Australia this year. The banana has extra genes that increase the levels of pro-vitamin A and iron. Read more about this below.

C.S. Prakash

Healthier GM bananas in Queensland
GMO Pundit blog
February 7, 2008

Australia's first genetically modified bananas could be growing in North Queensland by mid-year.

Scientists from the Queensland University of Technology will trial Cavendish bananas with extra genes that increase the levels of pro-vitamin A and iron in the fruit.

The technology will then be used to improve banana varieties in Uganda, where mineral and vitamin deficiencies are a big problem.

Professor James Dale says the field trials are a major step forward for the project.

"It will be the first field trial of genetically modified bananas in Australia and one of probably only three or four in the world", he says.

"It will be a very big step for us, fabulous to see the sort of genesis going from that first cell that we transformed back to a plant in the field, it's fairly exciting".

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:59 PM | Permalink

James Wachai, author of GMO Africa, posted an entry on the announcement that researchers in New Zealand have genetically modified an onion to not only be tear-free, but also be sweeter and healthier. Wachai writes that he is curious how the anti-GM activists will respond to this announcement, since the scientists did not insert a gene to accomplish this, but rather silenced one.

C.S. Prakash

No more teary onion, thanks to genetic engineering
GMO Africa
February 5, 2008

The blog, Rael the Prophet, reports on an article in the UK Telegraph about a research on a genetically engineered tear-free onion being collaboratively conducted by researchers from Japan and the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research. We’re all aware how teary an onion can be if mishandled when chopping. To men and women who spend considerable amounts of time cooking, this, definitely is news worth celebrating.

In addition to ridding onion of the gene that causes teary effects on our eyes, these researchers promise that this new variety will be sweeter and healthier.

What an exciting research? Indeed, it has generated quite a buzz. The journal Onion World, in its December edition, has featured this work, which is being piloted by Dr. Colin Eady. The popular environmental blog Environmental Grafita gleefully proclaims, GM onions means no more tears, with sarcasm:

Anti-GMO activists may soon be tearing up after a New Zealand company announced the development of a genetically modified tear free onion.

I can’t also wait to see their [anti-biotech activists] reactions. Instead of inserting a foreign gene into the onion, which has been the practice in crop genetic engineering, researchers in this project will be working to suppress the gene that makes onions teary.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:28 PM | Permalink

Food Navigator published an article on the negative views still held by much of Europe on genetically modified organisms. The article quotes Natalie Moll, a director at Europabio, the European Association for Bioindustries several times throughout the article on such topics as the approval process in Europe, competition around the world, University research and bans in EU member states of GM crops.

C.S. Prakash

Fickle European GM policies stifle competition, say experts
Food Navigator
February 4, 2008

The unstable political situation surrounding the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops is restricting university research and pushing small companies out of the arena, thereby restricting competition, said a GM expert.

Natalie Moll, a director at Europabio, the European Association for Bioindustries, told FoodNavigator.com: "The agricultural industry is lacking courageous people who are willing to take the chances in an area where the market is uncertain. Only big companies can survive."

As European member states struggle to agree on a biotech policy, with different countries applying their own bans and restrictions on GM research and cultivation, research and development is being sacrificed.

At the moment, the only type of GM crop grown in the EU is maize, which was approved in 1998. It is not cultivated for human consumption, but for animal feed only.

GM crop cultivation is expanding in Europe, with over 110,000 hectares of biotech crops harvested in seven EU member states last year, representing a 77 per cent increase.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:10 PM | Permalink

Wired Magazine Discusses “GMO 2.0”

Abstract: Wired Magazine posted an article on the addition of nutritional traits to consumer products, rather than traits that benefit farmers such as glyphosate resistance. The author coins the term “GMO 2.0” when describing the nutritional traits. Several members agreed that they should co-opt the use of this term in order to give a positive connotation to the usually negative acronym of GMO. One member suggested sending a letter to the editor of Wired, using golden rice as an example of GMO 2.0.

Sources: Wired Magazine

Opponents of RR Sugar Beets File Lawsuit Against USDA

Abstract: Members posted and discussed articles announcing a lawsuit filed against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the approval of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets. The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Food Safety, the Sierra Club and two organic seed groups and claims that RR sugar beets will lead to more glyphosate resistant weeds due to wind pollination. One member commented that he believed that “sugar beets were biennial, so cross-pollination would only be a potential issue for bolters and seed farms,” meaning not much of a risk at all.

Sources: Reuters
Capital Press

Members Applaud Decision by Biotechnology Companies to Pull Out of IAAST

Abstract: Nature published an article on the decision by Monsanto and Syngenta to pull out of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAAST). The group is currently working on writing reports that “promise to map how science, technology and accumulated good-farming practice can be used to reduce hunger and improve quality of life for rural people in developing countries.” The two companies are speculated to have left because the reports did not place much emphasis on the positive aspects of biotechnology. One member applauded the decisions of Monsanto and Syngenta, saying that they made the right decision since the group does not believe biotechnology has much value.

Source: Nature

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 3:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the UK’s Telegraph, there could be an onion that doesn’t make you cry when you slice it. Researchers in New Zealand and Japan are working on, and may have created an onion that does just that, and is healthier and tastier on top of it. Using RNA interference, scientists silenced the gene responsible for making you cry, redirecting into compounds responsible for flavor and health. While this won’t be available to consumers for a while, it is definitely something to look forward to!

C.S. Prakash

GM tear-free onion created by scientists
The Telegraph
February 1, 2008

A tear-free onion that should be tastier and healthier has been created by using genetic tinkering to turn off the enzyme that makes us cry.

The onions, which can be chopped without painful, stingy, weeping eyes, have been tested in the laboratory by New Zealand Crop & Food Research scientist Dr Colin Eady, with his collaborators in Japan.

"If the research progresses well, would like to see them become the household and industry norm within the next decade," says Dr Eady.

The research team has been unable to induce tearing by crushing their model tearless onions, which emerged from a discovery by Japanese scientists of the gene behind the tears. "When you slice the vegetable, it doesn't produce tears."

The key is not to introduce a foreign gene but to silence one using a phenomenon called RNA interference. By stopping sulphur compounds from being converted to the tearing agent and redirecting them into compounds responsible for flavour and health, the process could even improve the onion.

"We anticipate that the health and flavour profiles will actually be enhanced," Dr Eady says.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:22 PM | Permalink