GMO Food for Thought

Chinese Farmers and Bt Cotton

Abstract: A member wrote that he came across a newspaper article on a Cornell study that claimed Chinese farmers planting Bt cotton were loosing money. Noting that the article which appeared to be recent was actually a couple years old, the member asked for more information on the study. He also asked if the study was correct, why Chinese farmers continue to use Bt cotton despite being less profitable. Another member responded by saying that the study did not look at all aspects of farming, i.e. amount of pesticides used, health of the farmer, time spent in the fields, and said that he had seen another paper saying that more Chinese farmers are planting GM cotton. He also pointed to the recent ISAAA report on the current state of GM crops in the world for more information.

Source: Cornell University

Asia Embraces Biotechnology, Despite United Nations

Abstract: A member posted an article written by Henry Miller for the Far Eastern Economic Review. Miller criticizes the United Nations for ignoring scientific evidence on the positive impact of genetically modified crops, saying that several U.N. agencies have “conducted a senseless and destructive war on GM.” Using Asia as an example, Miller touts the benefits GM crops have brought to farmers worldwide. Several members responded to the article post by encouraging others to pass the article along to others.

Source: The Far Eastern Economic Review

Members Respond to Positive Article on Lack of Peer-Reviewed Studies

Abstract: A member posted another article by Henry Miller that appeared in The Guardian (UK). Miller discusses the need for trustworthy, prominent journals to work harder to ensure that the studies they publish are credible. He cites four well known studies that were put into question after flaws in research were found. Miller states that a better system of peer-review by unbiased scientists are needed to ensure the validity of future studies. Several members of the group commented on the importance of this article, saying that they plan to use it to “refute fake arguments.”

Source: The Guardian

Wormy Sweet Corn Study Debate Resurfaces in Canada

Abstract: An opinion article by Stephen Strauss appeared on CBC News (Canada) on an eight year old study that compared genetically modified “bt” sweet corn and conventional sweet corn in Canada. The controversial study supposedly included signs that described the conventional corn as “wormy sweet corn” and the Bt corn as “quality sweet corn.” Strauss agrees that the placement of these signs was an “error in judgment” by the researchers, but encourages those calling for the study to be retracted to conduct a study of their own without the signs and compare the results. Anti-GM activist Joe Cummins wrote a letter in response to the article noting that he had not been contacted despite his name being used in the article and argued that the call for retraction had more to do with how the study was conducted than the results. Members of AgBioWorld commented on this article saying that many of the people against this study are environmentalists who are often misinformed about what genetic modification really is. One member also mentioned a similar study involving genetically modified potatoes that was conducted in Price Edward Island, Canada, but was never published.

Source: CBC News

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 4:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Hungarian Agricultural Minister, József Gráf, called for a ban on genetically modified crops to be lifted at a conference hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He also admitted that they must proceed with caution, however. According to the article below, Hungary requires a buffer zone between GM and conventional crops, as well as permission from neighboring farmers to plant GM crops right now.

C.S. Prakash

Hungarian minister alludes to lifting ban on GM crops
Check Biotech
March 7, 2008

Agricultural Minister József Gráf said Hungary can not maintain a ban on genetically modified (GM) crops but caution is necessary regarding its scientific effects. He was speaking at a conference hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Gráf said the agricultural community, society and the government are all divided over the issue. New technology cannot be shut out completely, but any loosening of the law requires safety questions being proven absolutely, he added.

Hungary, one of Europe's main seed producers, has passed strict laws that prescribe buffer zones between GM and conventional crops. Farmers also need the approval of neighbouring landowners and users to plant GM crops.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:56 PM | Permalink

A student at Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, PA wrote the following article on genetically modified organisms. The author, Yusha Hu, appears to be in favor of the technology, even though she’s about how it works. I am happy to see college students engaged in this issue. Read the full article below.

C.S. Prakash

Genetically modified organisms are mm … mm … good
The Phoenix
March 6, 2008

If you didn’t read the Phoenix two weeks ago or, much more likely, have completely forgotten anything I said, here is a flashback. Last time, I wrote that there is no ethical or practical basis for categorically rejecting genetic engineering. But in the fight against genetically modified organisms, there are two main positions – being categorically against genetic engineering and being specifically against the application of genetic engineering to agriculture. This week, I’m going to address that second position.

Any basis for this opinion must stem from a practical argument, not a moral one. Genetic engineering is responsible for most of the drugs you take when you’re sick, the gene therapy your uncle is undergoing and maybe even the extra-awesome yeast that fermented your wine. If you accept the benefits of GMO use in areas that directly affect your life, as the vast majority of people do, then it is hypocritical to make a moral argument against genetic engineering specifically when it is applied to agriculture. And as I established last time, there is simply no ethical basis for rejecting genetic engineering in all these aspects of your life. If you do, you’d have to be even more hardcore than the scientologists and probably be living in the woods somewhere, in which case, I doubt you’d get your hands on a copy of the Phoenix.

For a pragmatic analysis of GM crops, we need to explore this case-by-case, simply because different GMO’s offer different benefits and, to a certain extent, different costs. Let’s start with golden rice, a pretty classic case of genetic engineering coming to the rescue. It’s enriched with vitamin A so as to prevent blindness and decrease mortality due to vitamin A deficiencies. It’s free of patents and ready for distribution to impoverished farmers worldwide as a permanent substitute for planting normal rice.

Two GMOs that are already in heavy rotation in the United States are pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant corn. Despite common misconceptions, both of these GMO’s have actually resulted in a significant reduction in herbicide and pesticide use. Pest-resistant corn produces its own species-specific pesticide so that farmers don’t have to spray any. Bugs are also killed somewhat more selectively, leaving untargeted insects alive and well. Herbicide-resistant varieties prevent the need to repeatedly spray a field with several specialized herbicides in order to leave the actual crop untargeted, reducing total herbicide use.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 3:53 PM | Permalink

GMO Africa blogger James Wachai always seems to be on top of things. Read his latest entry below on the importance of biosafety laws in Africa.

C.S. Prakash

Researcher wants biosafety laws in Africa
GMO Africa
March 6, 2008

Professor Walter Alhassan, a renowned agricultural biotechnologist from Ghana, recently raised a very salient issue regarding agricultural biotechnology in Africa. Alhassan moaned the unwillingness by African governments to enact laws to regulate safe acquisition of agricultural biotechnology. Alhassan regretted that the absence of biosafety laws in many African countries remains the greatest impediment to serious research on genetically modified crops in the continent.

I can’t but totally concur with Prof. Alhassan, and I would encourage other scientists, especially from Africa to stand by him. Unlike pro-biotech lobby groups and multinational biotechnology companies, they’ve the requisite credibility to force their respective governments to act. They’re the right people to explain, unabashedly, what biosafety laws entail. I say this because there’s this conventional belief in most African countries that the sole mission of biosafety laws should be to keep off genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from their territories. Sample this April 2007 statement from Zambia’s Chairperson of the Education, Science and Technology Committee, who said a biosafety law was needed to ensure “…Zambia remains a GMO free country.”

On this blog, just like Prof. Alhassan has said, I once emphasized that the first step to Africa benefiting from new technologies, including modern agricultural biotechnology, is to enact laws to regulate their acquisition. When computers emerged, African countries tried as much as they could to pass Information Technology (IT) laws to ensure their use for government and private businesses. The vigor with which African countries have enacted IT laws to ensure their safe use must, now, be applied to agricultural biotechnology. You can’t adjudge a technology - the way African governments are trying to do - as bad or good, before experiencing it. Europe, whose opposition to GMOs Africa seems to ape, is already conducting field trials of GM crops. Africa countries, except South Africa, are nowhere closer to here. They’re still dialoguing about whether biosafety laws have relevance to them. Isn’t this the time for Africa to heed Prof. Alhassan’s advice and pass biosafety laws, to allow farmers explore potential benefits agricultural biotechnology.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:41 AM | Permalink

There has been a lot of conversation about the rising price of grain in Europe right now. The Irish Times published the following article (reposted by Check Biotech) on the need to lift restrictions on genetically modified animal feed to help livestock owners survive.

C.S. Prakash

North Ireland plea over GM food imports
Check Biotech
March 6, 2008

Northern Ireland farmers must be allowed to import genetically modified (GM) animal feed to help them survive in the face of spiralling grain costs, Assembly members have claimed.

In a debate on the impact of the inflated global feed markets on the local intensive farming sector MLAs backed a proposal calling on the EU to loosen restrictions on the import of biotech feedstuffs.

The DUP added this amendment to an original Ulster Unionist motion urging the Agriculture minister Michelle Gildernew to provide financial support to those farmers who are struggling to cope with a 159% hike in grain prices in the last year.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh) said the livelihood of many farmers depended on the EU lifting restrictions on GM feed for animals

"These are being grown on an increasing scale in America and would go some way to addressing the grain shortage."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:47 AM | Permalink

Check out the following article on the growing acceptance of GM crops in the European Union. According to the article there is currently almost 110,000 hectares cultivated with GM maize in the EU, up from only 62,000 in 2006.

C.S. Prakash

GM Maize: 110,000 Hectares under Cultivation
Check Biotech
March 4, 2008

The cultivation of genetically modified plants in the EU is increasing. In 2007, genetically modified maize was grown on a total of nearly 110,000 hectares in Spain, France, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Germany. In the previous year, GM plantings comprised 62,000 hectares, totalling approximately 1 percent of maize cultivation areas.

To date, the only type of GMO grown in the EU is Bt maize. Bt maize contains a gene from a bacterium that produces a toxin ( Bt-toxin) to defend it from the European corn borer. An insect pest, the European corn borer primarily is present in southern and middle Europe, and is slowly making its way north.

Regions infested with the European corn borer can experience serious crop losses. Since biological and chemical control methods are expensive and only partially effective, Bt maize can be a money-saving option for many farmers despite its higher seed cost.

In Spain, a substantial amount of the maize production is genetically modified – it is estimated that 25 percent of the current production falls under this category. Bt maize was first grown in Spain in 1998, and by 2004 production had risen to 60,000 hectares. In 2007, GM maize was cultivated on more than 75,000 hectares.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:30 AM | Permalink

Check out this new book I ran across today. Titled “Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa,” Robert Paarlberg explores the reasons why poor African farmers are denied access to technology such as genetically modified seeds.

C.S. Prakash

Starved for Science
Harvard University Press
March 1, 2008

Heading upcountry in Africa to visit small farms is absolutely exhilarating given the dramatic beauty of big skies, red soil, and arid vistas, but eventually the two-lane tarmac narrows to rutted dirt, and the journey must continue on foot. The farmers you eventually meet are mostly women, hardworking but visibly poor. They have no improved seeds, no chemical fertilizers, no irrigation, and with their meager crops they earn less than a dollar a day. Many are malnourished.

Nearly two-thirds of Africans are employed in agriculture, yet on a per-capita basis they produce roughly 20 percent less than they did in 1970. Although modern agricultural science was the key to reducing rural poverty in Asia, modern farm science—including biotechnology—has recently been kept out of Africa.

In Starved for Science Robert Paarlberg explains why poor African farmers are denied access to productive technologies, particularly genetically engineered seeds with improved resistance to insects and drought. He traces this obstacle to the current opposition to farm science in prosperous countries. Having embraced agricultural science to become well-fed themselves, those in wealthy countries are now instructing Africans—on the most dubious grounds—not to do the same.

In a book sure to generate intense debate, Paarlberg details how this cultural turn against agricultural science among affluent societies is now being exported, inappropriately, to Africa. Those who are opposed to the use of agricultural technologies are telling African farmers that, in effect, it would be just as well for them to remain poor.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:18 AM | Permalink