GMO Food for Thought

New York Times Articles on Biotechnology and Organics Gain Attention Online

Abstract: The New York Times published an article of particular interest to AgBioWorld Members titled “In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo.” The article has been reposted by numerous bloggers around the Web and has been a hot topic of conversation. A few days earlier the NYT published an article on the rising cost of organic food. This article was discussed broadly within the group.

Sources: “In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo”
“Sticker Shock in the Organic Aisles”

Swiss “Dignity” Law Discussed

Abstract: Nature recently published an article on a “dignity” law in Switzerland. The law requires the federal government's ethics committee on non-human biotechnology to map out guidelines to help granting agencies decide which research applications deeply offend the dignity of plants. If it does not pass, the research will become “unfundable.” According to the article,

“All plant biotechnology grant applications must now include a paragraph explaining the extent to which plant dignity is considered. ‘But scientists don't know what it means,’ says Beat Keller of the Institute of Plant Biology at the University of Zurich.”

Members had a lot to say about this law, mostly criticizing the “absurdity” of it. A member also noted that the concept originated in the Netherlands, though their version is a little different. Another member posted a link to a workshop being held at the World Congress on the Future of Food and Agriculture Conference in Bonn, Germany, May 12 – 16, 2008.

Sources: Nature
“The Dignity of Living Beings” brochure produced by Switzerland (PDF)
“Rediscover the Plant: A scientific and ethical discourse” Workshop

GM Canola Seeds Sell Out in Australia

Abstract: A member posted a news article reporting that genetically modified canola appears to be a success in parts of Australia, as all available GM canola seed have sold out for autumn planting in New South Wales. One member cautioned that victory can not be declared yet, as there are some farmers that are threatening to sue of contamination occurred. Another member responded, saying that the chances of contamination in Australia are lower than that in other countries due to the location of the farmers. Also, since the farms are closer to the coasts, activists that are behind the farmers threats are less likely to check farms that are hours away from big cities.

Source: ABC Central West (AU)

Posted by CS Prakash at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Science Daily recently published an article that claims herbicide tolerant crops can improve water quality. The article cites a study conducted by soil scientists Martin Shipitalo and Lloyd Owens, and agricultural engineer Rob Malone at the USDA-ARS’s North Appalachian Experimental Watershed near Coshocton, OH. Read more about the study below and the follow the link to the Genetic Modification blog to finish.

C.S. Prakash

Herbicide Tolerant Plants Can Help Improve Water Quality
Genetic Modification blog
April 23, 2008

Although genetically modified crops are getting so much flak today, there seems to be some instances where they may provide some positive benefits in some areas related to farming and the environment. According to an article on the sciencedaily website, a team of researchers found out that genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may have helped reduce herbicide runoff in watersheds and improve water quality in a four-year span.

A four-year study conducted by soil scientists Martin Shipitalo and Lloyd Owens, and agricultural engineer Rob Malone at the USDA-ARS’s North Appalachian Experimental Watershed near Coshocton, OH, aimed to compare the relative losses of residual and contact herbicides when applied at normal rates. Both types of herbicides were applied to seven small watersheds that was planted with genetically modified Liberty Linked corn and Roundup Ready soybean. Residual herbicides are the type of herbicides more commonly used for most organic crops while contact herbicides began its use with the introduction of genetically modified herbicide resistant crops.

The researchers noted that losses of contact herbicides were usually much less in surface run-off than for those areas where residual herbicides were used as a percentage of the amount of herbicide that was used. When averaged for all the soybean crop years, glyphosate runoff was about one half that of alachlor and one seventh of metribuzin, two of the residual herbicides that can be replaced by the contact herbicide Roundup. In the same study, another contact herbicide, glufosinate (Liberty) has an average runoff loss one fourth that of atrazine, a type of residual herbicide for corn crops that it can replace.

Residual herbicide runoff in different bodies of water has been a constant problem in areas of the country where farming is practiced. These residual herbicides find their way in nearby rivers, streams and lakes as well as water reservoirs and build up concentrations that can exceed drinking water standards. This poses a problem if those bodies of water are also used as sources of drinking water. This contamination can lead to increased costs when treating the water supply and may even result for the need to look for alternative sources of water supply.

The study showed that replacing residual herbicides with that of contact herbicides while planting genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may help avoid contaminating watersheds and water supply sources from excessive herbicide surface runoffs.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:00 AM | Permalink

The New York Times published an article today on the growing demand for European countries to accept genetically modified feed. Livestock farmers are being forced to pay extremely high prices for organic feed because GM feed is banned in Europe. A surge in interest concerning the development of genetically modified grains, specifically wheat is also discussed. Read more below.

C.S. Prakash

In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo
New York Times
April 21, 2008

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.

In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky.

“We cannot afford it,” said a corn buyer at Kato Kagaku, a Japanese maker of corn starch and corn syrup.

In the United States, wheat growers and marketers, once hesitant about adopting biotechnology because they feared losing export sales, are now warming to it as a way to bolster supplies. Genetically modified crops contain genes from other organisms to make the plants resistance to insects, herbicides or disease. Opponents continue to worry that such crops have not been studied enough and that they might pose risks to health and the environment.

“I think it’s pretty clear that price and supply concerns have people thinking a little bit differently today,” said Steve Mercer, a spokesman for U.S. Wheat Associates, a federally supported cooperative that promotes American wheat abroad.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:56 AM | Permalink

A UK food manufacturing magazine is disputing claims made by the Soil Association that genetically modified crops do not increase yield. Food Manufacture, the UK’s leading food and drink market magazine published an article quoting Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics as saying that he is frustrated with reports that simply “cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument.”

C.S. Prakash

Organic lobby spreading ‘nonsense’ about GM, claim scientists
Food Manufacture
April 21, 2008

New claims by environmental lobbyists that genetic modification (GM) does not increase crop yields or reduce pesticide use have been dismissed by plant breeding experts as “total nonsense”.

According to the Soil Association (SA), “the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties”, while “any initial reduction in pesticide use is short-lived and often reversed as new pests arrive and old ones adapt”. Its comments came in the wake of recent moves to reignite the GM debate by scientists claiming that transgenic crops could boost agricultural productivity in the face of global food shortages and climate change.

Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics, said he was becoming “increasingly frustrated by reports that cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument”.

Brookes, a joint author of a major report on the environmental and economic impact of agricultural biotechnology published last year, said: “This is just complete nonsense. Pesticide use has not increased as a result of the adoption of biotech crops – indeed, it has fallen significantly relative to levels of use that would have occurred without using biotechnology.”

Likewise, it was “deeply insulting to the intelligence of farmers” to say that there were no economic benefits to using GM technology, he said. “They criticise biotech companies for having a vested interest - along the lines of ‘you would say that wouldn’t you’, but they also have a vested interest in attacking GM crops and supporting organic agriculture, which typically delivers far lower yields.”

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 7:13 AM | Permalink

The Western Australia Farmers Federation is backing the use of genetically modified crops as a way for farmers to cut reliance on fertilizer. The following article states that the price of fertilizer has risen drastically this year, prompting the government to look into the fertilizer industry and causing farmers to take another look at GM crops.

C.S. Prakash

GM crops cut reliance on fertiliser: WAFF
ABC News
April 21, 2008

Western Australia's peak farm body is backing the use of Genetically Modified Crops as a way of cutting a reliance on fertiliser.

Some fertiliser prices have risen almost three-fold this year, prompting a Senate inquiry into the fertiliser industry.

In a submission to the inquiry, WA Farmers Federation Economist Julian Breheny says the increases are enough of a shock to outweigh the emotional arguments against GM crops.

"It can improve fertiliser use efficiency and I think that as we go forward and we see possible rises due to shortages then its very important that we consider all options," he said.

"I just don't think that we can ignore science that has already proved in concept that it can improve fertiliser use efficiency, and I think that as we see possible rises due to shortages its very important that we consider all options."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 6:57 AM | Permalink

Check out this random blog entry by Jackie Danicki. She loudly proclaims that she is not afraid to eat genetically modified foods and is tired of others telling her not to. Great job Jackie!

C.S. Prakash

On genetically modified food
Jackie Danicki
April 18, 2008

People always look at me in horror when I say that I have zero problem with eating genetically modified foods. Even if I did, I would not consider it up to you or any politician to decide whether or not I should be permitted to do so, or whether it should be legal to do so or not. Of course it should be legal. Of course one should be allowed to eat whatever one wishes. If you are to make the offensive suggestion that it is your or another person’s decision to make for me, the onus is on you to make the case for that.

So, yeah: Pass the franken-food.

I would like to ask some of the [GM critics] how they imagine most strains of wheat, barley, soybeans or rice that have been staples of diets for centuries came along. They are, albeit through trial and error over eons, just as ‘modified’ as a Monsanto crop. And that I think is the kicker: it is the speed of scientific change, not the change as such, that gives people the heeby-jeebies about genetic modification. I am not sure how that can be easily addressed without massive improvements in popular understanding of science.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:51 AM | Permalink

Reuters also posted an article on the trouble BASF is having in Europe. This report states that BASF is considering legal action if the EU does not approve its genetically modified potato for commercial cultivation. The article also reinforces that the potato would be used solely for industrial purpose, such as making paper, due to its high starch content.

C.S. Prakash

BASF ready for lawsuit against EU on GMO potato
Reuters
April 17, 2008

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - German chemical company BASF may take legal action against the European Commission if approval of its genetically modified (GMO) potato is not issued soon, a senior company official said on Thursday.

"We are prepared to take legal action against the Commission," said Stefan Marcinowski, a member of BASF's board of executive directors told reporters at a briefing.

Asked about a possible timeframe, he said: "Not years, we are doing the utmost to meet the next planting season."

After an inconclusive meeting this week with EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, BASF sent him an open letter -- printed across German media, the Financial Times and other newspapers on Thursday -- demanding that the Commission approve its Amflora potato "without any further delay".

If approval is given, it would be the EU's first authorization of a GMO product for cultivation in a decade. Only one GMO crop may be grown commercially in the EU, a maize made by U.S. biotech company Monsanto and approved in 1998.

"We have not been satisfied with the process of approval so we took this unusual step (of the open letter)," Marcinowski said. "The decision has been sitting for nine months on the desk of Commissioner Dimas."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:44 AM | Permalink

The UK Telegraph published the following article today on Europe’s resistance to genetically modified crops and food. Citing food shortages, the author says that the acceptance of GM crops in Europe will encourage other parts of the world to follow, and help eliminate food shortages.

C.S. Prakash

GM crops can save us from food shortages
The Telegraph
April 17, 2008

It is remarkable how rapidly the world has moved from worrying about deflation to worrying about inflation; from cheer to despondency about the reduction of poverty; and from concern about food surpluses to panic about shortages.

• Simple ways to cut your carbon footprint
• GM food wins backing from Country Life

The hand of rising food prices is suddenly seen everywhere: in the riots in Tibet against Chinese rule; in drastic measures in the Philippines, Egypt, India and many African countries to restrict food exports; in calls for more aid; and even in the Bank of England's reluctance to cut interest rates as fast as its American counterpart.

For agricultural commodity prices (what we call "food") to have more than doubled in the past three years is an astonishing and worrying turn of events. But in responding to it, we need to understand the true nature of the problem.

And we must recognise that a big part of this problem is our own fault - because of our ill thought-out enthusiasm for using food to fuel cars as well as stomachs; and because of our longer-established but also ill considered opposition to the use of genetic engineering to help us grow more food.

Start with the true nature of the problem of food-price inflation. Most attention has been given to shortages in supply and to the increased appetite in China and India for meat, which requires more grain.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:22 AM | Permalink

I found this article in Forbes today on biotechnology seed maker BASF. According to the article, EU Commissioner Stravros Dimas refuses to lift the ban on growing BASF’s genetically modified potato, Amflora. Check out the article below and let me know what you think, is Dimas being unreasonable?

C.S. Prakash

BASF demands approval of genetically modified potato from EU's Dimas
Forbes
April 17, 2008

FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - BASF SE. said it published an open letter to EU Commissioner Stravros Dimas demanding speedy approval of genetically modified potato Amflora for commercial cultivation after a meeting between Dimas and the company on Tuesday failed to produce an agreement.

'Representatives from the Commission were not able to present new scientific findings that would argue against approving Amflora for commercial cultivation in Europe,' BASF said in a statement.

A decision on the matter has been outstanding since July 2007, and BASF last year said it expects approval in September 2007.

'An important future technology that offers benefits to farmers and the starch industry in Europe is being blocked without any reason,' BASF said in a statement.

'And even though all steps in the EU approval process have been taken successfully, Mr. Dimas failed to grant approval.'

BASF earlier this year said the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recommended approval of the cultivation of Amflora and of use of the potato as feed, stating Amflora is as safe for humans, animals and the environment as conventional potatoes.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:20 AM | Permalink

I ran across an interesting blog post by GMO Africa blogger James Wachai today. He links to a blog post written by rice geneticist Dr. Pamela Ronald, who writes positively about genetically modified crops. He notes, and I agree, that it’s great to see a scientist writing positively on this subject; it doesn’t happen enough.

C.S. Prakash

UC Davis researcher blogs on genetic engineering
GMO Africa
April 15, 2008

Blogger Karl J. Mogel of The Inoculated writes that Dr. Pamela Ronald, a rice geneticist and director of Plant Genomics Program at UC Davis has a new blog called Tomorrow’s Table. Pam’s blog celebrates crop genetic engineering, from a scientist point of view.

Nobody’s excited by Pam’s blog than me. On this blog, on several occasions, I’ve exhorted scientists to take charge of the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Read this post on this subject that I made in December 2006.) Thumbs up Pam for taking the gauntlet.

Since the commercialization of the first genetically modified (GM) crop in 1995, scientists haven’t been forceful enough to educate the public about agricultural biotechnology. Many - except people like Norman Borlaug, Roger Beachy, Sir David King, Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Clive James, Dr. Luciana De Ciero, Dr. Ruth Oniang’o - have opted to maintain a studious silence as the science behind crop genetic engineering is distorted right and left by people who couldn’t conduct a simple high school lab experiment. These are the people who have been ruling the airwaves and the internet with unsubstantiated decibel rhetoric against GMOs.

Scientists are to blame for this state of affairs. Had they, in the early beginning, demanded every charge against GMOs be scientifically substantiated, the current poisonous debate about GM crops would not be there. And it’s not too late. Pam, through her Tomorrow Table blog, has set the pace: others should follow.

The world wants scientists to take lead in this debate. It’s them who should be saying whether or not GM crops offer any hope to farmers not some shenanigans whose sole motive is to create confusion and despondency in farmers and policy makers.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:33 AM | Permalink

GMO Africa blogger James Wachai posted the following blog entry on an interview conducted by Reason Magazine with Robert Paarlberg on GMOs and Africa. James has a lot of interesting comments on the issues raised by the interview; check them out below.

C.S. Prakash

Journalist counsels Africa on GMOs
GMO Africa
April 2, 2008

Journalist Kerry Howley of the Reason magazine has written a very riveting and informative article on how fear is being used to deny Africa cutting-edge technologies. Howley writes how activists descend on Africa every time new technologies emerge. They, using apocalyptic theories, misadvise and mislead Africans into not embracing these technologies.

Africans are usually warned of cataclysmic consequences if they adopt new technologies. Usually, they’re told the West wants to use them as guinea pigs, or to enslave them. Most play along, thanks to high illiteracy levels and unavailability and/or access to alternative sources of information. Always the consequences are grave: the rest of the world prospers, while Africa wallows in poverty. Essentially, Africa merely gawks as other countries industrialize.

Howley beautifully illustrates this point using the swirling debate about genetically modified (GM) foods. She writes how African countries have shunned GM foods on the advice of consumer advocacy groups such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. These groups happen to have a big presence in Africa

Except South Africa, no other African country is currently growing genetically modified (GM) crops. We’ve read reports of countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe turning away food from the World Food Program (WFP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USaid) on suspicions they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) Many African countries have passed laws to completely bar GM crops.

In her article, Howley laments that Zambia and Zimbabwe’s turning away of GM food “…brimmed over and seeped into almost every African state.” She regrets that “…cutting edge farming technology is most feared where it is most needed.”

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:35 AM | Permalink

Saw this blog entry while surfing around today. Roger Beachy of the Danforth Center was speaking to students at the University of California – Davis about the negative views associated with genetically modified organisms Beachy said many consumers have a bad opinion or GMOs because the media has portrayed them in that way. Read more about Beachy’s views below.

C.S. Prakash

Let the people decide on GMOs
The Notes from a Gene Safari blog
April 2, 2008

Roger Beachy (of the Danforth Center) came to UC Davis this week to give a seminar. The grad students had the good fortune of meeting with him over lunch. He has some very interesting perspectives on genetic engineering that I haven't heard before.

One of his most striking points was that all this hype we hear of the public being against GMOs is largely generated by the media. The consumer public has been given very few opportunities to make decisions for themselves. He gave several examples of the public enthusiastically embracing GMOs.

• Most papayas now have engineered resistance to the papaya ringspot virus (due to disastrous epidemics in Hawaii). Non-engineered, infected papayas have cosmetic blemishes and spoil quickly. Consumers prefer the engineered, virus-free fruit despite labels that declare the inclusion of recombinant DNA technology
• The Flavr Savr tomato, engineered to decrease spoilage, apparently couldn't be stocked fast enough to supply the public during its brief existence (until Calgene went out of business and ceased production)
• A study in Pennsylvania found that consumers at a farmers market presented with three types of sweet corn (engineered for insect resistance, conventional and organic) preferred organic to conventional corn and GMO corn to both organic and conventional. The GMO crop was favored because it was produced without pesticides OR the insects/insect damage that usually occur in the absence of pesticides.

Much more importantly, he described the center's humanitarian efforts in Africa. They are engineering crops with disease resistance and greatly elevated levels of vitamins and protein to fight malnutrition. They are also creating corn varieties that are resistant to a fungal disease that has been linked to devastating cancer rates in certain regions (the fungus infects corn naturally and produces a carcinogenic toxin, fumonisin).

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:22 AM | Permalink

I ran across this blog entry today about the GMO debate in Hawaii. Hawaiian legislators have temporary shelved a bill that would ban the cultivation of GMO coffee in Hawaii. The legislators have asked for a study into “the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops” first.

C.S. Prakash

Hawaii Won't Ban GM Coffee
Organic or Bust blog
April 2, 2008

"Hawaii won't ban genetically altered coffee, a decision that worries growers of the Kona coffee brand who want to keep it pure.

State lawmakers shelved a bill recently that would have prohibited growing genetically modified coffee in Hawaii until 2012. Instead, they want to order a study into the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops.

Coffee farmers are worried that genetically modified coffee could contaminate expensive Kona blends, which are only grown on Hawaii's Big Island and exported worldwide.

"The fact that you're creating a 'frankenfood' is very scary. What will it do to my morning cup of coffee?" asked John Langenstein, sales manager for Koa Coffee Plantation."

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 11:11 AM | Permalink