Plant Biotech Blog

Sydney Morning Herald
By Mark Metherell
February 28, 2007

Excerpt…

AUSTRALIA is falling behind in the rapid world growth of more productive biotech crops, such as drought-tolerant and pest resistant strains, the former deputy prime minister says.

“Food versus fuel” fights over the diversion of crops to biofuels threaten to hit Australia unless this country dramatically upgrades crop development, John Anderson believes.

The Nationals MP has called for a rethink on the states’ bans against genetically-modified food crops. “If we are going to avoid an ugly stand-off over food versus fuel, we are going to have to spend a lot more on plant research … because it is very likely that a large part of the answer on renewable energy will be biofuels,” Mr Anderson told the Herald.

The huge potential for genetically modified crops, including the use of non-grain crops and residues to supplement oil as a fuel, was being lost to Australia because of irrational fears.

“Many of the current bans have been driven by concern about the unknown and fears of the so-called ‘Frankenstein food’ factor but the reality is more and more GM crops are being grown around the world.”
Australia has about 200,000 hectares planted in biotech crops, most of it modified cotton, compared with the estimated total world area of more than 100 million hectares, half of it in the United States.

Read the rest of this entry »

EurActiv.com
February 26, 2007

Excerpt…

A debate organised by Friends of Europe, an EU policy think-tank, explored whether the EU’s strict authorisation procedures on genetically modified food are preventing developing countries from investing in potentially lifesaving technologies.

Related Documents:

LinksDossier: Genetically Modified Organisms

LinksDossier: Life Sciences & Biotechnology

Background:

Other news

• Better GMO labelling backed by a million…
• Austria finds backing for GMO bans
• ‘Happy animals make good food’, says EU…
• EU accepts trade ruling on GMOs
• EU to force GMO counter-test over US…

On 20 February 2007, EU environment ministers voted against a Commission proposal to lift a ban imposed by Hungary on MON810 GM maize, which the country claims has harmful effects on European plants and animals.
This is the third time that member states have rejected Commission attempts to lift national bans on the growing of certain GM crops, despite assurances from the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) technical experts that they are safe.

EU ministers also failed to authorise the marketing of a genetically modified carnation…which effectively prevented any GMOs from being marketed in the EU for a five-year period - was lifted in 2003.

Large-scale GMO producers, such as the US, Argentina and Brazil, as well as large biotech companies including Monsanto, Sygenta and Bayer have been pushing for the EU to ease its authorisation procedure and let more GM crops in, resulting in a case at the World Trade Organisation (EurActiv 22/11/06).

Read the rest of this entry »

GMO Africa Blog
James Wachai
February 26, 2007

In a recent meeting, African Union (AU) Ministers of Agriculture endorsed the development of the African Seed and Biotechnology Program (ASPB). The ministers, meeting in Libreville, Gabon, seemed to acknowledge that Africa is in short supply of quality seeds, and that’s why its agricultural sector remains in the doldrums. This situation is self-inflicted, and has more to do with the politicization of seed technologies. It’s encouraging that the AU is making deliberate efforts to promote biotechnology in the continent.

Africa is financially constrained to develop high-yielding seeds. It doesn’t have the technological know-how. Worse, scientists who could have been the force behind new seeds development have fled to developed countries to seek greener pastures.

The reality, then, is that developed countries are the sole sources of high-yielding seeds. Through genetic modification, biotechnology companies in these countries have managed to develop drought and pesticide resistant seeds whose returns have been great. The bounty harvests farmers in the U.S. Canada, and developing countries such as China and India realize from biotech seeds only attest to their productivity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Agbioworld
by: Boie Conrad Dublin
February 20, 2007

Excerpt…

Food derived from genetically modified (GM) plants is as safe as those produced from conventional sources, according to the Abu Dhabi-based Regional Director of the Agricultural Trade Office of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), David J. Williams Tuesday during a round table discussion with the press at the US Embassy in Bayan.

Williams’ visit was prompted by allegations about the dangers of GM foods raised by two Greenpeace activists during a press conference held in Kuwait last week. Countering the issues raised by Arnaud Apoteker and Andi Freimuller on the supposed adverse effects GM foods could have on human health, Williams said that US regulatory process ensures that all biotech products that are commercially grown, processed, sold, and consumed are as safe for the environment and for human and animal health as their conventional counterparts. According to him, the US government’s regulatory system is transparent, predictable, open to public comment, and based on sound science. It is continuously reviewed and evaluated to ensure it meets the challenges of this evolving technology.

He said that the agencies responsible for its regulation are the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration or FDA. In further touting the safety of GM foods, Williams cited the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research’s report which states: “Research on the GM (Genetically Modified) - plants and derived products so far developed and marketed … has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment … Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods.

“GM foods available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health in any other form than their conventional counterparts.” According to a June 2005 report by the World Health Organization, Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: and evidence-based study.” The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) report “The State of Food and Agriculture, 2003-2004″ further states: “Thus far, in those countries where transgenic (GM) crops have been grown, there have been no verifiable reports of these causing significant health or environmental harm.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The East African
By ESTHER NAKKAZI
Special Correspondent
February 20, 2007

Excerpt…

Uganda could soon introduce genetically modified bananas after a successful genetically engineered sweet banana variety proved resistant to pests and diseases.

The technology will improve the quality of banana, an important food and cash crop whose production has declined due to diseases, especially the banana wilt disease.

Genetically engineered bananas will also contribute to food security and improve household incomes. Almost 24.5 per cent of Ugandan household’s income is contributed by bananas. Some 70 per cent of farmers grow them as a staple food as well as for brewing local liquor.

Scientists estimate that if the technology is applied to other varieties, the country could save up to $8 billion it is said to have earmarked in the next five years for fighting the banana bacterial wilt disease.

The disease is currently ravaging the country and spreading to Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania.

The genetically engineered variety was developed by Geoffrey Arinaitwe, a Ugandan scientist based in Belgium who has now applied to the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) for a permit to import it to Uganda.

“The Council has already cleared it for field testing after importation from Belgium.

This innovation will pave the way for research on other varieties to make them resistant to diseases,” said Arthur Makara, the biosafety desk officer at the Council, the country’s leading institution for science, technology and innovation development.

Read the rest of this entry »

Business Day
February 20, 2007

Excerpt…

EUROPEAN consumer panic and European Union (EU) regulations about genetically modified (GM) foods threaten millions of starving Africans, who need cheap and reliable crops. Greenpeace has just garnered a million signatures around Europe for a petition to the EU demanding labels for traces of GM organisms in food. This time last year, Zambia banned famine relief containing GM food. Uganda and Kenya are wavering and millions of people are starving in Africa right now. GM food may not solve malnutrition and starvation by itself, but it would make a huge difference.

Remember, we are talking about a product that has been eaten by Americans and Canadians for more than a decade without harming anybody: even the EU, while applying many restrictions, accepts that it is safer than conventional food.

Fifteen years of tests in 400 European laboratories led EU research commissioner Philippe Busquin to say in 2001 that they had not found “any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding”.

“Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods,” Busquin said.

Read the rest of this entry »

GMO Africa Blog
James Wachai
February 19, 2007

In an article appearing in AsianNews.it, the archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, is reported to have sent a letter to Philippines president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, urging her to stop the sale of genetically modified (GM) rice “because it poses health risks to consumers.”

According to the cardinal, “Independent and environmentally-concerned local and international scientists already warned that genetically-modified crops and food products could be very harmful to the environment and to human beings.”

Some people might ask why Cardinal Rosales’stance on GM foods matters to Africa. I am not a Catholic myself, but I gather that Catholic Cardinals don’t issue public pronouncements, especially on an issue as sensitive as GM foods, from the blues. Such must be endorsed by the Vatican.

So when Cardinal Rosales wholesomely condemns GM foods, the question that springs up in my mind is, “Is he expressing his personal views or those of the Vatican? If he’s reinforcing the Vatican’s view on GM foods, then I must be worried, because millions of Africans – most of whom can’t feed themselves - subscribe to the Catholic faith. But I doubt Cardinal Rosales’ views on GM foods mirrors those of the Vatican.

In appreciation of the potential of agricultural biotechnology to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in poor countries, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace in August 2003, produced a document supporting GM foods.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Philippine STAR
February 18, 2007

Excerpt…

After just 10 years of commercialization, biotech crops have made significant, positive impacts on the global environment, according to a new study by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, two UK-based economists.

The study quantifies the cumulative economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops grown during the past decade (1996-2005).

Brookes and Barfoot said biotech crops have contributed to significant environmental benefits from the reduction in overall usage of pesticides. They also noted a significant reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from biotech crop production.

They also reported that farmers who planted biotech crops realized significant economic gains compared to farmers who planted non-biotech crops.

A key finding of the study revealed that farmers used almost half a billion pounds (224 m kg.) less pesticides with genetically modified (GM) crops since 1996, a reduction of seven percent. This represents about 40 percent of the annual volume of pesticides used in the European Union.

The authors found that the global “environmental impact” of pesticide use has been reduced by over 15 percent due to the planting of biotech crops.

At the same time, biotech crops made a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices by nine billion kg of carbon dioxide. “This is the equivalent of removing almost four million cars from the road for one year,” the authors pointed out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Farmers Weekly
February 16, 2007

Excerpt…

Fears that growing genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) oilseed rape and sugar beet will create uncontrollable super-weeds are unfounded, recent research suggests.

Indeed, herbicide-tolerant beet could offer a fresh start in the weed beet battle.

However, some management practices would need to change, the study by Rothamsted Research and ADAS concludes.

“GMHT beet would give us a superb opportunity to get rid of the weed beet problem and start again,” says one of the authors, Broom’s Barn’s Mike May.

Conventional weed beet plants would be killed by the spray used in the HT crop…removing the reservoir that plagues many farms at a stroke.

“With a bit of effort we could stop the problem building again,” says Mr May. Modern varieties are much less susceptible to bolting, though some control will still be needed.

“With herbicide tolerant beet it is vital to remove any bolters from the crop before they flower and release pollen, otherwise gene flow to weed beet will occur, so creating herbicide tolerant weed beet,” he explains.

Read the rest of this entry »

Agbioworld
- Editorial, Estado De São Paulo (Brazil)
February 6, 2007

Excerpt…

In case the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) does not approve the corn and cotton varieties, which proceedings are stopped, farmers may refrain from profiting up to US$ 9 billion in the next ten years. This alert was made today, on the first day of the ‘Show Rural’ Coopavel, by the Council for Biotechnology Information (CIB), in a reported developed by Céleres Consultoria.

In the analysis of Anderson Galvão, director of Céleres, corn producers may fail to gain US$ 6.9 billion in the next decade, in case the insect and herbicide resistant varieties are not released by the government for commercial planting. In the case of cotton, the income waiver might reach US$ 2.1 billion. “These figures are a lot more representative than those of soybeans, as the area planted with corn is virtually half of the soybean area. Whereas, for cotton, the area cultivated is of little more than 1 million hectares, which makes transforms these US$ 2.1 billion into very high saving if taking into account the hectares planted”, he explains.

For both crops, profits from the adoption of biotechnology, according to the study, would derive from the higher yield and the reduced expenses with herbicides and insecticides. “…the benefits are concentrated in the hands of farmers and of the companies that own the technology, but it has already been observed that they have already been shared among the whole chain and they will certainly reach final consumers”, states Galvão.

The preliminary data of the report presented today already indicate that a kilo of chicken bred with transgenic soybeans feed could be sold to consumers for a cost 3.3% lower than the chicken raised with conventional feed. In the case of milk, savings represent 3.4% and for pork savings may reach 4%. “From the moment the companies perceive the necessary political security, new technologies will be introduced in the Country and final consumers.