GMO Food for Thought http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/ en-US Copyright 2008 Fri, 16 May 2008 21:41:40 +0000 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss AgBioWorld Members Discuss Organic Myths Response and GM Feed in Europe UK’s Soil Association Responds to “Organic Myths” Article Abstract: The UK organic organization The Soil Association responded to last week’s article on organic myths. A member posted this article while another argued that there will always been anti-organic advocates claiming one thing and organic advocates countering these claims with “peer-reviewed studies.” The member suggested that a non-interested party look at all the information available and “give a verdict.” Source: The First Post (UK) European Parliament Committee Chair Neil Parish Calls for Ban on GM Feed to be Lifted Abstract: A member posted an article from the Irish Examiner on the need for the European Commission to lift the ban on genetically modified feed stuffs. Livestock owners feel that it is difficult to compete in the global market because they have to may a lot more for animal feed that does not contain GM ingredients. Another point made in the article is that 90 percent of the meat imported into the EU is from cattle fed GM animal feed, making it cheaper to sell. Source: Irish Examiner ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/agbioworld_members_discuss_org_1.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/agbioworld_members_discuss_org_1.html Blog Posts Fri, 16 May 2008 21:41:40 +0000 AgBioWorld Members Discuss Organic Myths and GM Potatoes UK’s The Independent Publishes Article on Organic Food Myths Abstract: The British newspaper The Independent published a really good article on the many “myths” associated with organic food. Included in the lists is that organic farming is good for the environment, organic farming doesn’t use pesticides and organic food is healthier. Several members commented that US mainstream media does not like to write negatively about organics; some think it is because organic is “trendy” so reporters don’t want to write negatively about it. Source: The Independent Researchers in Germany test genetically modified potatoes on humans Abstract: The European Journal of Nutrition recently published an article on a trial in Germany with potatoes that are genetically modified to produce more zeaxanthin, a protein that helps protect the eyes from blue light damage. Three men participated in this randomized, controlled double-blinded, crossover pilot study. The study found that consumption of eaxanthin-rich potatoes significantly increases chylomicron zeaxanthin concentrations suggesting that potentially such potatoes could be used as an important dietary source of zeaxanthin. Source: National Institute of Health ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/agbioworld_members_discuss_org.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/agbioworld_members_discuss_org.html Blog Posts Mon, 12 May 2008 17:42:35 +0000 Navigating the genetic engineering maze Navigating the genetic engineering maze Alpha Galileo May 8, 2008 In the decade since genetically modified strains of maize resistant to insects have been grown in the European Union, crop yields have gone up, farmers' reliance on insecticides has fallen significantly and the quality of maize has improved. That's the message from research published this month in the International Journal of Biotechnology from Inderscience Publishers. Agricultural economist Graham Brookes of PG Economics Ltd, based in Dorchester, UK, has reviewed the specific economic impacts on yield and farm income as well as the environmental impact with respect to a lower reliance on insecticide usage since the introduction of GM maize in the EU in 1998. So-called "Bt" maize carries genes for a highly specific insect toxin from the soil-dwelling microbe Bacillus thuringiensis. This toxin kills the European corn borer and the Mediterranean stem borer, which would otherwise damage maize crops without insecticidal spraying. Brookes' analysis reveals that profits have risen by more than a fifth for some farmers who previously used synthetic insecticides to control these pests. He points out that GM technology has reduced insecticide spraying markedly, which also has associated environmental benefits. He also points out that the quality of the maize produced is higher because the GM crop is less susceptible than non-GM maize to infestation with fungi that produce mycotoxins, hazardous to human health. Bt maize was planted for the first time in 1998 in Spain and in 2007 the total area of this crop in Spain was about 75000 hectares. In total, the EU plantings of Bt maize in 2007 were 110,000 hectares, with crops also in France, Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Poland. This represents 1.3% of total EU grain maize plantings in 2007. Read more... ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/navigating_the_genetic_enginee.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/navigating_the_genetic_enginee.html News Thu, 08 May 2008 16:58:27 +0000 Not-Monsters Adding Not-Poison to Sugar Not-Monsters Adding Not-Poison to Sugar Synapostasy blog May 08, 2008 Andrew Kimbrell is a goddamn bio-Luddite, one of many. It embarrasses me that certain liberals can be so staunchly and irrationally opposed to technology, based upon paranoia over corporate interest, a weirdly conservative adherence to the simple purity of "Nature," and their own naked ignorance. One of the major victims of bio-Luddite oppression is genetically modified (GM) foods, sometimes referred to as "Frankenfoods" (but not by me). In a column today in the Huffington Post, Kimbrell sows paranoia over a specific GM crop, the Roundup Ready sugar beet developed by Monsanto. These sugar beets are genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup. GM opponents often have a hard time explaining just what makes GM food so dangerous. Sometimes it's argued that the introduced genes themselves are somehow pollutive, despite the fact that it's all the same adenine guanine cytosine thymine, baby. Kimbrell makes a particularly poor argument here, based on glyphosate:
At the request of Monsanto, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowable amount of glyphosate residues on sugar beetroots by a whopping 5,000% -- glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Sugar is extracted from the beet's root and the inevitable result is more glyphosate in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their chocolate morsels without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.
He then goes on about how seed farmers could start making seeds from Roundup Ready sugar beets so the GM crop spreads, and how sugar from GM beets gets mixed in with regular beets, and how GM beet pollen could contaminate other crops' genetics, and how there could be a huge consumer backlash, and how Big Science is putting poison in your dear mother's chocolates OMG!!! Read more...]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/notmonsters_adding_notpoison_t.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/notmonsters_adding_notpoison_t.html News Thu, 08 May 2008 16:00:29 +0000 Ex-food chief: Crops for fuel is OK Ex-food chief: Crops for fuel is OK NewsTalk May 5, 2008 In his five years as executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, Jim Morris saw global hunger from an uncomfortably close vantage point. So, one might expect him to criticize the idea of turning corn and soybeans into alternative fuels. After all, the ethanol and biodiesel plants popping up in Indiana and elsewhere across the Midwest siphon food away from people who are starving to death at the rate of one every five seconds. But that’s not what he thinks. Now president of the Indiana Pacers, Morris still believes food should be used to feed people before being turned into fuel, but he also thinks it’s moral to use food for fuels. “We have a fair balance,” he says. “It’s not an either-or situation.” Morris, who helped launch amateur sports in Indianapolis and once led Lilly Endowment, quickly adds caveats. More countries need to get over their fears of biotech crops. Genetically engineered crops are hardier and have great potential to increase food production, he says, a notion China and India have begun to embrace but Africa still needs to learn. Read more... ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/exfood_chief_crops_for_fuel_is.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/05/exfood_chief_crops_for_fuel_is.html News Mon, 05 May 2008 16:38:38 +0000 AgBioWorld Members Discuss New York Times Articles, Swiss “Dignity” Law and GM Canola in Australia 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) ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/agbioworld_members_discuss_new.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/agbioworld_members_discuss_new.html Blog Posts Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:17:18 +0000 Herbicide Tolerant Plants Can Help Improve Water Quality 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... ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/herbicide_tolerant_plants_can.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/herbicide_tolerant_plants_can.html News Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:00:54 +0000 In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo 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...]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/in_lean_times_biotech_grains_a.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/in_lean_times_biotech_grains_a.html News Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:56:53 +0000 Organic lobby spreading ‘nonsense’ about GM, claim scientists 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... ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/organic_lobby_spreading_nonsen.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/organic_lobby_spreading_nonsen.html News Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:13:11 +0000 GM crops cut reliance on fertiliser: WAFF 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... ]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/gm_crops_cut_reliance_on_ferti.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/gm_crops_cut_reliance_on_ferti.html News Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:57:25 +0000 On genetically modified food 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...]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/on_genetically_modified_food.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/on_genetically_modified_food.html News Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:51:07 +0000 BASF ready for lawsuit against EU on GMO potato 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...]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/basf_ready_for_lawsuit_against.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/basf_ready_for_lawsuit_against.html News Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:44:48 +0000 GM crops can save us from food shortages 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. 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...]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/gm_crops_can_save_us_from_food.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/gm_crops_can_save_us_from_food.html News Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:22:31 +0000 BASF demands approval of genetically modified potato from EU's Dimas 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...]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/basf_demands_approval_of_genet.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/basf_demands_approval_of_genet.html News Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:20:28 +0000 UC Davis researcher blogs on genetic engineering 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...]]> http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/uc_davis_researcher_blogs_on_g.html http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2008/04/uc_davis_researcher_blogs_on_g.html News Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:33:09 +0000