Plant Biotech Blog

Gulf News
By Bss & Brn in Al Ain
January 31, 2007

Dr Ameen Yousuf, food safety consultant at the General Secretariat of Municipalities addressed the bogus survey that Greenpeace conducted and the Gulf News hyped last weekend.

He said that he “could not say whether or not GMOs are dangerous to health as more studies are needed”, though as I noted in my last post on this, “No major health hazards have come to light since GM food was introduced 13 years ago, and close to 150 studies are published to attest their safety”. Still, at least his comments are much more balanced than the last report. No talk of “contamination” this time, instead urging “scientific research”.

I could have done without his comment that “it could be discovered in 20 years that there are serious side effects”. Obviously, that is true, more time might show some hidden danger right now. It could also be discovered that reading the Gulf News causes cancer, but there is also no evidence for that proposition either. The only difference is that anyone who went around trying to frighten people on that basis wouldn’t be taken seriously.

AgBioWorld
January 30, 2007

As scientists who are familiar with plant biotechnology and the positive impacts biotech crops have delivered over the past decade, we are disappointed and concerned to read about the recent interim moratorium on field testing of biotech crops in India . We are equally concerned about the recent actions by activist groups who are advocating a complete ban of all field testing of biotech crops in India .

There are activists groups who are committed to opposing crop biotechnology and similar protests were demonstrated by them during its trial stage in 1998-2000 prior to the approval of Bt cotton in India . However, the regulatory authorities and judiciary set aside the protests and allowed the trials to be carried out. The authorities satisfied with the rigorous scientific studies conducted on Bt cotton granted commercial approval in 2002 and since then, Bt cotton in India has provided tremendous economic benefits and helped in bringing higher farm income to the Indian farmer.

Biotech crops were first commercialized in 1996, and since then they have been rapidly adopted by farmers around the world. Scientists have confirmed that the current commercial biotech crops have delivered significant economic and environmental returns to farmers. Higher yields, lower costs, reduced pesticide use and less tillage have been the benefits delivered by these first commercial biotech crops.

The next generation of biotech crops being developed includes crops with higher nutrition, lower fats and higher levels of heart healthy compounds. There are also crops under development with higher tolerance to drought and cold that will provide tremendous benefits to the agricultural sector as well as society in general.

Biotech crops are rigorously tested by scientific and regulatory organizations before they are allowed to be planted commercially. All of the commercial biotech crops have been tested and shown to be as safe as conventional crops. Field testing is an important part of this safety assessment process. All field trials should be done in full compliance of the regulatory system and approval conditions. Without field testing, none of these new biotech crops will be available for planting by Indian farmers. A ban on field testing is a de facto ban on biotechnology. It is irresponsible for activist groups to misrepresent the demonstrated benefits and potential risks of biotech crops and restrict Indian farmers their rights to choose the most efficient and most sustainable crops on their farm.

We urge you to consider the demonstrated benefits of biotech crops that farmers have realized for over 10 years globally, including the benefits from Bt cotton in India . We also urge you to consider the next generation of crops that will continue to help farmers increase the productivity and sustainability of their farming operations. It is imperative that a science based regulatory system continues to be implemented to ensure the safety of these new crops. Field testing is a critical component of a science based safety assessment program. We urge you to reject these campaigns in the name of science and on behalf of Indian farmers, who will benefit from the continued introduction of new technologies to help make them more productive.

Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The sowing of biotech crops will formally be launched in March-April this year in the country, and this will help the government not only ensure food security, but to reduce poverty as well, said Dr Kauser A Malik, Secretary of the National Commission on Biotechnology and member of the Agriculture Planning Commission on Tuesday.

“Bt cotton is already sown in Pakistan. This technology will be extended to other crops too this year,” he said while concluding a lecture delivered by Dr Clive James, founder and chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application (ISAAA). Kauser Abdullah lamented the bureaucratic hurdles being created in the way of implementation of new technologies. However, all the necessary arrangements are now well in place and the new Bt crops will be grown in Pakistan, he told a gathering, where no senior official was present from the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MINFAL). However, the lecture was attended by officials from the Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC) and National Agriculture Research Council (NARC).

Read the rest of this entry »

Bss & Brn in Al Ain

Greenpeace, the environmental group, has shown up in the Gulf and convinced the Gulf News to run an editorial disguised as an article.

In the article, the following phrases are used as statements of fact, not opinion:

The UAE lacks “proper labelling [sic] laws”. Sorry, but it is not that easy. By what standard are the current laws improper? Because Greenpeace doesn’t like them?

Read the rest of this entry »

Comrade Tortoise
January 24, 2007

I read a recent article in the State Press (my school newspaper at ASU) regarding the use of organically grown fibers in the fashion industry and how the increase in their use is due to environmental concerns among consumers and within the industry itself. The article also cites that 7 of the 15 leading pesticides are known human carcinogens and that the use of organic crops is one of the best ways to help the environment. This is wrong. This is wrong for a great many reasons and they have to do with the environment and human health. Let me explain why.

Organic farming uses up more space than non-organic farming. That’s right kids. The crop yields per acre are not the same. Organic farmers suffer higher losses from insects, which necessarily increases the amount of space they must use to get the same crop yield. They use crop rotation to keep the soil fertile for longer and to keep insect populations down. This also increases the amount of space they must use for the same yield. Organic farmers also use animal dung to fertilize their crops. In order to replenish the soil, they need to use a larger amount of dung in terms of biomass than they produced in actual crops. This means that the cows need to be fed more than the farm actually produces because nitrogen fixation in the soil is not at 100% efficiency and also when you feed the cows, there is a lot of waste material that contains previously fixed nitrogen and other nutrients that they do not consume. Those cows also require space. Additionally manure itself is a pollutant as excesses of certain nutrients are damaging to soil health and to replenish one nutrient with it, one would need to increase the concentrations of all nutrients contained within the manure. Moreover, manure is a source of potentially lethal E. coli, as it is contained in the gut of cattle. That is why ground beef is so dangerous if not cooked properly, it comes into contact with the cow’s gut contents. That aside, organic farming requires so much space that if we used only organic farming methods we could only feed roughly 2/3rds of the worlds population with existing farmland, according to Nobel Prize winning agricultural scientists Dr. Norman Borlaug. Our current problems with hunger have to do with corrupt governments and distribution, not actual production.

Read the rest of this entry »

EuropaBio
January 23, 2007

Prof. Dr. Marc Van Montagu, Chairman, International Plant Biotechnology Organisation (IPBO) Gent University and president of the European Federation of Biotechnology, told journalists in Brussels today that European farmers are lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of access to agricultural biotechnology.

Marc Van Montagu, one of the best known plant biotech pioneers in Europe, is convinced that technology transfer and plant biotechnology research oriented to the needs of the developing countries are important: “Fighting the vicious circle of hunger and poverty is the most urgent task that faces our society, and will require a reformulation of current models of agriculture,” he said. But he also believes that the technology has already demonstrated considerable benefits in Europe, despite systematic attempts to deny European farmers the right to use a technology widely used in the rest of the world.

Although new figures published last week by ISAAA, The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, show that in 2006 the number of hectares globally cultivated with GM crops increased by 12 million hectares most of this growth came from countries such as China and India. Most EU farmers continue to be held back by a dysfunctional regulatory system and by disproportionate co-existence rules.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yaenabaavi farmers have cited several reasons for not cultivating Bt cotton:
expensive seed; more sucking pests; new root and drying diseases; reduced soil fertility; death of sheep and damage to the health of the cattle that ate Bt cotton plants; causes allergy. Yaenabaavi farmers said that they are not against new technology. They would take a chance with new varieties of crops even when the previous year’s experience was disappointing but Bt cotton failed consistently, in Narasapeta (where illegal Bt cotton is grown), Lingala Ghanapur, Ranganathapalli and Devarappula Mandals of the Warnagal district and in most of Karnool district.

The causes for not cultivating Bt cotton given by the farmers are based on heresy as no Bt cotton was never grown there and they have no first hand experience about it. Their assertion that Bt cotton consistently failed in the neighbouring areas was also based on information they were provided, although they cited one farmer of the village who cultivated Bt cotton with disastrous results.

Yaenabaavi farmers analyzed for us the causes for farmers’ suicides: There have been more farmer suicides in the recent years (this may partly be due to more extensive press coverage), than in the earlier years. Crops failed during the previous three years or so. High costs of company seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides did not yield proportionate returns. Monoculture (means cultivation without crop rotation?) reduced yields year by year. Market forces conspired to pay the farmer less and less. There is no price difference between Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton, in the market. Chemical inputs reduced soil fertility resulting in bad crop yield. All this has increased indebtedness. Of course, there were alcohol and family problems to add. Although they cited several causes for farmers’ suicides, there is a serious implication of Bt cotton in this tragedy. Same with the death of sheep.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yaenabaavi (Eenabaavi, Enabavi), a hamlet of the Kalyanam Revenue village, Lingala Ghanapur Mandal, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, has recently become famous. A Press Release of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Secunderabad, announced that ‘Enabavi village goes GM free; (the village) says that food security has not suffered by shifting to organic’ (GM Watch, October 12, 2006). The Hindu (October12, 2006) pronounced that ‘Enabavi farmers create history’ and NDTV (October 13, 2006) called this place ‘An island of prosperity’. These three reports are more or less identical. The unbelievable story of Yaenabaavi made some wonder if this place were a ‘heaven on earth’.

Curious to know the ground realities first hand, Professor Ronald Herring (Cornell University, Ithaca, USA), Dr S Shantharam (Biologistics International, Ellicott City, USA) and I went to Yaenabaavi, on December 16, 2006.

Yaenabaavi is a proclaimed ‘chemical and GM free’ hamlet. The Centre for Rural Operations and Programmes Society (CROPS), Janagam, and the Centre for World Solidarity (CSW), Secunderabad, monitor the agricultural operations at Yaenabaavi and other places in the Warangal and Khammam Districts in Andhra Pradesh. The CSA closely interacts with the farmers and guides them, with support from Aide à l’enfance de l’Inde (AEI), Luxembourg. Before going to Yaenabaavi, we visited CSA’s office in Secunderabad and discussed this hamlet, among other issues.

Read the rest of this entry »

This letter is from one of the readers of Border Watch, an Australian newspaper, and discusses the issue of genetically modified foods.. It has been republished in the website of Truth About Trade and Technology, an organization that highlights the importance of technology in modern trade.

Sir,
The puritanical tone of the articles and editorials on GM crops in your paper recently deserves some balance and rational discussion.

Currently, cotton growers in Australia have the right to choose whether or not they grow conventional or GM cotton.

Read the rest of this entry »

APEC High Level Policy Dialogue for Agricultural Biotechnology -CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA, JANUARY, 21, 2007 -
A unique mix of small farmers, corporate farmers, biotechnologists and policy makers from around the Asia Pacific region met on Friday to share information on the potential for biotechnology to address some important challenges facing agriculture.

The Private Sector Day, that preceded the sixth meeting of the APEC High Level Policy Dialogue on Agricultural Biotechnology, offered key stakeholders an insight into how biotechnology can help farmers deal with impacts of climate change and increase yields with fewer pesticides.

The gains from biotech crops were demonstrated by small farmers in Asia through to large corporate farmers in Australia and North America. This is why 10 million of the worlds’ farmers now choose to grow over 100 million hectares of biotech crops. More than half the worlds’ population now live in countries growing biotech crops.

One of the speakers at the dialogue, the General Manager for Biotechnology at Croplife Australia, Mr. Nicholas Woods, said the benefits of biotech crops are of increasing interest in the Asia-Pacific region.

“The expanded use of safe agricultural biotechnology products is helping to enhance human health, improve environmental safety and feed a growing global population,” Mr. Woods said.

“For example, 10 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions have been eliminated because farmers using biotech crops do not have to till their land or use pesticide as much as in conventional farming.”

The Private Sector Day was the first day of the sixth meeting of the APEC High Level Policy Dialogue on Agricultural Biotechnology (Policy Dialogue).

The HLPDAB is being held over three days in association with the APEC Senior Officials related meetings in Canberra between January 15-26.

For further information or to arrange an interview contact:

Christopher Hawkins on +61 (0)433 810 844 or E-mail: ch@apec.org

Anita Douglas on +61 (0)420 945 613 or E-mail: ad@apec.org