GMO Food for Thought

The UK’s The Telegraph newspaper published an op-ed on a statement Prince Charles made against genetically modified foods. The author writes that while he is in agreement with a lot of what Prince Charles says, he does not support Charles’ opinion on biotechnology. He points out that scientific research shows that GM food will help reduce starvation in a world that is growing too fast.

C.S. Prakash

If we want to feed the world, we must go GM
The Telegraph
13/08/2008

Prince Charles is right on many things. Modern architecture - much of it an eyesore. Standards in schools - woefully low. Protecting Britain's landscape - a noble aim.

On genetically modified crops, however - the issue that he discusses with Jeff Randall in today's Daily Telegraph - I fear he's wrong.

I am not a scientist, but rummage around in the scientific research about GM and a clear picture emerges: if we want to reduce starvation and "feed the world", as Sir Bob Geldof et al tell us every Christmas, we must go GM.

The argument in favour of GM crops begins with a simple one: the world is growing fast.

More mouths to feed means more food. Since 1970, the per capita consumption of calories in China has leapt by 50 per cent, in India by 25 per cent. Developing countries' demand for meat grew threefold.

Continue reading "If we want to feed the world, we must go GM" »

Posted by CS Prakash at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Truth about Trade & Technology board member Bill Horan wrote an editorial on the development of biotech cacao. While the exact nature of the biotech trait being researched is not known, Horan notes that the research will lead to lower cacao prices and will help farmers in Africa produce more.

C.S. Prakash

Sweet Motivation
Truth about Trade & Technology
08 August 2008

On his fourth voyage across the ocean, Columbus captured a large trading canoe off the coast of what is now Honduras. Among its contents were beans from cacao trees. The explorer seems not to have understood their true significance. He had stumbled upon the key ingredient to chocolate.

A couple of generations would pass before Europeans developed a taste for what was already considered a delicacy among the indigenous people of Central and South America. Today, of course, chocolate has gone global--it’s possibly the most popular flavor in the world.

Chocolate makers would like to keep it that way: Mars, the candy company, recently decided to invest $10 million to unravel the genome of the cacao tree. The motivation behind the five-year project is to develop a hardier crop, using the latest tools of biotechnology.

Continue reading "Sweet Motivation" »

Posted by CS Prakash at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Charlie Bauer, a sugar beet farmer in Michigan, wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in response to an article urging readers to boycott companies using GM sugar. Bauer writes that he supports biotech sugar beets because it benefits not only the farmer, but the consumer as well. He states that in addition to allowing the farmer to plow less and use fewer pesticides, the consumer benefits from this as well, with less exhaust emissions and fewer pesticides in the environment.

C.S. Prakash

Letter about sugar was misleading
Hillsdale Daily News
Aug 08, 2008

I am responding to the misleading and inaccurate statements in the Aug. 2 letter to the editor “Don’t support companies that use genetically engineered sugar.”

As a Michigan sugarbeet grower, I am particularly supportive of genetically enhanced Roundup Ready sugarbeets because in addition to addressing one of the most significant challenges growers face – weed control – they lessen impacts on the environment (which is a benefit to consumers), while producing pure and natural sugar.

The bottom line is that the sugar is the same, no matter its original plant source. Scientific analyses showed that sugar from Roundup Ready sugarbeets is identical at the molecular level to the sugar from the sugarbeets we’ve grown for decades. And regulatory agencies around the world – including Canada, Japan, the EU and Australia – have confirmed that food and feed products derived from Roundup Ready sugarbeets are the same as those derived from other sugarbeets grown in a similar way.

Continue reading "Letter about sugar was misleading" »

Posted by CS Prakash at 9:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Prince Charles of Wales Speaks out Against Genetic Modification

Abstract: Last week the UK’s Prince Charles of Wales loudly voiced his opinions about genetic modification, saying that GM crops are “the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.” Members of AgBioWorld discussed this topic at length, many expressing the need to react. Several also posted links to articles criticizing Prince Charles, one article going as far to say that it’s up to him and others against GM, to prove that the technology is unsafe.

Sources: The Telegraph (UK)
The Guardian (UK)
Nature blog
The Times (UK) – Background information
BBC News (UK)
The Telegraph (UK)
The Telegraph (UK)

EFSA Confirms Safety of Controversial GM Ice Protein

Abstract: A member posted a Food Navigator article announcing that the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) published an opinion in favor of Unilever’s GM ice protein. The company genetically engineered yeast to include a protein found in cold water fish, vegetables, grains, lichens and bacteria called ice structuring protein (ISP). “Unilever found the qualities of ISPs could also provide textual benefits for low-fat ice cream, as well as providing pH stability in frozen products.”

Source: Food Navigator

Fleeing Famine, Bees Seek Asylum in Cities Discussed

Abstract: A member of AgBioWorld posted a question to the group about a new story from the Inter-Press Service on the affect genetically modified maize is having on bees in Germany. The poster asks about the claim that a crop can be approved for feed and not food. Also questioned is the GM threshold for feed-approved maize in food. Another member responds saying that the European Union does not allow a “split” of a crop between food and feed. Meaning if a genetically modified crop is approved it must be approved for both feed and food. He also notes that while the article claims that there is a .4 percent GM threshold for honey in Germany, the standard in the EU is .9 percent, much higher than what the article claims. Another member posts a blog entry on GMObelus about this article, suggesting members clarify the issue for the blogs readers.

Sources: Inter-Press Service (IPS)
GMObelus blog

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

USDA Publishes New Biotech Crops Statistics

Abstract: A member posted a link to a new USDA report on the growth of biotechnology in the United States. The report states that despite the decrease from 2007, planted acreage is at its second highest level since 1946. Corn producers planted 80 percent of their acreage with biotech seed varieties, up 7 percent from 2007 and soybean producers planted 92 percent of their crops with biotech seed varieties.

Source: USDA Economic Research Service

Scandinavian Study Finds Organic Foods Not More Nutritious Than Conventional

Abstract: A study funded by the International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS) was posted this week. The study compared the nutritional benefits of organic and conventional foodstuffs. The study found that, contrary to popular opinion, organic foodstuffs do not contain more major “trace elements” or nutrients than conventional foodstuffs. Several members posted comments on the origin of the study, while another cautioned others not to confuse organic and sustainable agriculture, as they are quite different.

Source: Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Researchers Victims of “Terrorist” Actions

Abstract: A member posted an article by Henry Miller on the threats many University researchers receive due to the nature of their research. Miller provides several examples of researchers who have had people break into their homes, light their cars on fire and vandalize their homes. There are also those who have had their research destroyed, as many activists in Europe often destroy biotech trial fields. Many members expressed their delight in seeing an article that brings this issue to the public.

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

Slate Publishes Negative Article on Biotechnology

Abstract: Members discuss an article that appeared on Slate.com, “Food Fight - The Four Barriers to the Genetically Modified-Food Revolution- and Why No One Is Talking About Them.” The article criticizes the biotechnology industry, saying that it is not practical to think that genetically modified plants are going to have an immediate affect on a global food crisis. The article specifically criticizes the types of crops being targeted, yield improvement, accessibility to third world countries and the industry’s response to consumer concerns. Many members commented negatively about the piece with a couple of them submitting comments to Slate.

Sources: Slate.com
Slate.com reader discussion of article

Posted by CS Prakash at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Scientists are working on developing genetically modified bananas and apples. The following article states that consumer-marketed biotech fruits and vegetables have not yet been developed due to negative activist and consumer attitudes. However biotech bananas are currently in development in tropical nationals and could be shipped to the U.S. within in 10 years. What do you think about biotech fruit?

C.S. Prakash

GMO bananas, apples potentially in the pipeline
ACLUSA blog
August 5, 2008

(July 24, 3:37 p.m.) A nonbrowning apple variety and a disease-resistant banana may be the next commodities to test consumer acceptance of biotechnology in fresh produce.

The U.S. has more than 144 million acres of biotech crops under cultivation, but virtually none of that acreage is represented by crops grown for the fresh produce market. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported this year that 80% of the nation’s field corn crop and 92% of soybeans were biotech varieties.

The slow development in biotechnology for fresh produce has been rooted in caution about consumer attitudes. The genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato was unveiled in 1992 but ran aground amid activist resistance, prolonged regulatory reviews and lukewarm market acceptance. . .

“There are very few biotech derived fruits and vegetables on the market and there is not too many being actively developed that are close to being on the market,” said Michael Wach, managing director for science and regulatory affairs for the Food and Agriculture Department of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, D.C.

“I don’t see anybody in the Washington (state) apple industry trying to market a genetically modified apple at this point in time for fear of getting clobbered by the activists,” said economist Desmond O’Rourke, president of Belrose Inc., Pullman, Wash . . .

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:01 PM | Permalink

Farmer in France Sued for Growing GM Maize Part II

Abstract: Members continue to discuss the case of a French farmer who is being sued for growing GM Maize. One member questions whether the farmer could potentially counter sue the activists for trespassing or vandalism.

BASF Takes the European Commission to Court Over Non-Approval of Amflora Potato

Abstract: BASF announced that it “filed an action with the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg against the EU Commission for failure to act. According to the company, the approval process of the cultivation of Amflora, its genetically improved potato, has been unjustifiably delayed by the EU Commission on several occasions. In particular, this includes the period between July 2007 and May 2008 during which Commissioner Stavros Dimas did not adopt the approval for the cultivation of Amflora following the completion of all other procedural steps.” Several members commented on this announcement, many remarking on the differences between regular potatoes and BASF’s genetically engineered potatoes. One member asked about there taste, which spurred discussion about a group of scientists who publically taste-tested a GM tomato and received much criticism for it.

Source: BASF News Release
National Center for Biotechnology Information

European Commission to Drop Zero-Tolerance Policy

Abstract: A member posted a German article reporting the European Commission intents to end the current zero-tolerance policy for unapproved GMOs in food and feed. According to internal documents by GD Health obtained by the paper, the EC envisions allowing trace amounts of up to 0.1 percent. Others in the group responded by saying that this was merely a formality and that nothing is really changing.

Source: Frankfurter Rundschau (German)

Farmer in France Sued for Growing GM Maize Part II

Abstract: Members continue to discuss the case of a French farmer who is being sued for growing GM Maize. One member questions whether the farmer could potentially counter sue the activists for trespassing or vandalism.

Posted by CS Prakash at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas have genetically engineered a carrot to provide more calcium. During trials, researchers found that participants absorbed 41 percent more calcium from the genetically modified carrots than from the natural variety.

C.S. Prakash

Scientists Genetically Engineer "Super Carrot" Rich in Calcium
NaturalNews.com
August 1, 2008

(NaturalNews) Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas have genetically engineered a carrot to provide more calcium, according to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In the past, most genetically engineered products have been marketed to farmers, claiming to provide benefits such as herbicide resistance. The "super carrot," however is part of a new trend toward products that claim to provide a direct benefit to consumers. Other researchers are working to modify potatoes to absorb less oil during frying, and to boost the cancer-fighting-chemical content of broccoli.

While carrots contain naturally occurring calcium, the mineral is poorly absorbed by the human body. In the modified carrots, a gene has been changed to allow calcium to move more freely across the carrot's cell membranes.

To test the carrot, researchers fed both normal and genetically modified carrots to 15 women and 15 men between the ages of 21 and 29, then conducted urine tests to determine calcium absorption. The researchers found that participants absorbed 41 percent more calcium from the genetically modified carrot than from the natural variety.

That amounts to a calcium content of between 27 and 29 milligrams per 100 grams (four ounces) of modified carrots.

Read more...

Posted by CS Prakash at 5:07 PM | Permalink