Plant Biotech Blog

GMO Pundit
Ian B. Edwards, PhD; D.Sc; FCSSA
Chairman – AgBio Advisory Group – AusBiotech
June 23, 2007

Excerpt…

Australia has one of the most rigorous and transparent gene technology regulation Acts in the world, and is achieving its objective in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment. This was one of the key findings of the Independent Panel Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000, published in 2006. To those involved in the life sciences industry the act is considered almost draconian in its level of rigor, but most accept the fact that if we are to build public confidence in agricultural biotechnology it is both necessary and should be respected. However, this is clearly not the viewpoint of certain NGO’s ideologically opposed to biotech crops, and certainly not the viewpoint of Kim Chance, Western Australia’s Minister for Agriculture.

Under Australia’s Act the areas of human health and safety are a Federal mandate, while the states do have certain marketing rights. However Minister Chance, not content with imposing a state moratorium in April 2004 on the growing of all biotech or GM crops in Western Australia, took it upon himself to openly criticize Food Standards Australia – New Zealand (FSANZ) for not adequately safeguarding human health. In late 2005 he made public his intent to commission an independent feeding trial on GM crops so that supposedly unbiased data would be obtained. He openly expressed a concern shared by Greenpeace that, because the companies submit data to the Gene Technology Regulator it is somehow automatically subject to bias. Lost in all this was the fact that Australia subscribes to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX), which mandates world’s best practice in food standards, and FSANZ not only uses the information supplied by companies and independent laboratories commissioned to do the specialized animal feeding trials, but also takes account of peer reviewed university studies and the findings of other regulatory systems such as the US, Canada, and the European Union.

The group he selected to conduct the feeding studies was the Institute for Health and Environmental Health in Adelaide, comprising three individuals (led by Dr Judy Carman), none of whom have scientific records in conducting or analyzing long term feeding studies. Dr Carman toured around with UK activist Dr Mae Wan Ho to speak against GM crops and food safety. Ho has a relentlessly anti-science agenda against GM crops (and modern Darwinian theory), while Carman has constantly attacked FSANZ for alleged food regulatory inadequacies, and had two articles (“Health Concerns” and “Threats to our Health”) published in Greenpeace’s True Food Guide 2003. To most rational individuals this would have raised a flag about Dr Carman’s competency to conduct independent trials, but not to Minister Chance….

Full article at GMO Pundit.

GMO Pundit
Nina V. Fedoroff, Evan Pugh Professor and Verne M. Willaman Chair of Life Sciences, Penn State
June 23, 2007

Excerpt…

In chapter seven of his environmental masterpiece Walden, Henry David Thoreau writes about his bean field: “…making the yellow soil express its summer thought in bean leaves and blossoms rather than in wormwood and piper and millet grass, making the earth say beans instead of grass—this was my daily work.”

You may wonder why I begin an essay on genetically modified foods with a quote from Thoreau. But to me, environmentalism and plant breeding are inextricably linked. Our civilization rests on our ability to make the earth say beans. Other creatures feed their young, but the adults of most species fend for themselves, spending much of their day doing it. By contrast, we humans have learned to farm. Over the last few centuries, advances in science have let fewer and fewer farmers feed more and more people, freeing the rest of us to make and sell each other hats and houses and computers, to be scientists and politicians, painters, teachers, doctors, spiritual leaders, and talk-show hosts. In some parts of the world, only one person in a hundred grows plants or raises animals for food. Most of us are surprisingly unaware of what it takes to create our bread and breakfast cereal, pasta and rice, those perfect fruits and vegetables, unblemished by insect bites or fungal spots. Free to live our lives with little thought for our food, we ignore the source of the gift.

Our civilization rests, in fact, on a history of tinkering with nature—on making the earth say beans instead of grass. Thoreau’s beans were not wild. The pod of a wild bean bursts when its seed is ripe, flinging the bean far from the parent plant to find a new place to sprout. The pods of those beans we grow for food do not burst. Such beans can no longer seed themselves. Nor can the wild grasses we have changed, over the millennia, into our staple food sources: rice, wheat, and corn. To change a wild plant into a food plant requires changes in the plant’s genes. To boost its yield, to make the earth say more beans, means changing the plant’s genes, as well. For thousands of years, farmers have been picking and choosing plants, propagating those with the genetic changes—mutations—that made them better food plants. Our civilization is the beneficiary of this genetic tinkering.

I have been studying plant genes—and tinkering with them—since the early 1980s, when I had the good fortune to work with Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock, whose discovery of “transposons,” popularly called “jumping genes,” rewrote our concept of a gene. By identifying and cloning a jumping gene in 1984, I was able to identify the DNA sequences of McClintock’s transposons and then to analyze and understand how they operate. Today we know that the genome is full of transposable elements and is constantly changing. Instead of being static “beads on a string,” genes can move from one chromosome to another. Although the genes themselves are conserved over long evolutionary periods, there have been, and continue to be, numerous rearrangements, transpositions, duplications, and deletions, many of which are the work of the restless transposons.

McClintock and I worked on corn, and since then I and my students have used many of the techniques of genetic engineering invented in the last 20 years to uncover the secrets of how transposons and other kinds of plant genes work. I have never applied my knowledge to making a genetically modified crop, but my familiarity with both the techniques and the corn genome made me pay attention when corporations began doing so—and when the federal government began regulating the field-testing and marketing of these crops. I have given numerous public lectures on genetically modified foods and, with co-author Nancy Marie Brown, have written the book Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods, published in 2004 by Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press….

Full article at GMO Pundit and the Penn State Science Journal.

FoodConsumer.org
David Liu
Jun 23, 2007

Here is the excerpt of an article from FoodConsumer.org on the benefits of GM crops, such as mushrooms.

Excerpt…

Mushrooms, the smallest rooms in the world, have already proved to be healthy foods. Scientists have now genetically modified mushrooms such that they might serve as bio-factories for the production of various beneficial human drugs, according to new research released Friday June 22, 2007.

“There has always been a recognized potential of the mushroom as being a choice platform for the mass production of commercially valuable proteins,” said Charles Peter Romaine, who holds the John B. Swayne Chair in spawn science and professor of plant pathology at Penn State.

“Mushrooms could make the ideal vehicle for the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals to treat a broad array of human illnesses. But nobody has been able to come up with a feasible way of doing that.”

Dr. Romaine and Xi Chen have developed a technique to genetically modify Agaricus bisporus — the button variety of mushroom, the predominant edible species worldwide.

Using the technology, transgenic mushrooms may be used as bio-factories to produce therapeutic proteins such as vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and hormones like insulin or commercial enzyme such as cellulase for biofuels, which if produced from other sources have been known to be of low efficiency.

“Right now medical treatment exists for about 500 diseases and genetic disorders, but thanks to the human genome project, before long, new drugs will be available for thousands of other diseases,” Dr. Romaine said.

“We need a new way of mass-producing protein-based drugs, which is economical, safe, and fast. We believe mushrooms are going to be the platform of the future.”…

Full article at FoodConsumer.org.

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India
June 22, 2007

The Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP) is issuing an Ordinance restricting the maximum sale price of 400 g of Bt cotton seed required for an acre to Rs. 750. The package also includes 50 g of non-Bt cotton seed to plant the refugium. This Ordinance is being bought in to ostensibly protect the farmer, after the Central Government removed cotton from the protected list of essential commodities.

The Ordinance applies to the whole State, but the focus is on the Warangal District, the fountain head of all anti-GE activism. In the climate of appeasement politics, the State Government gains some brownie points from the Ordinance, but in effect this does not help the farmer much. The AP Government should be doing several other things for the benefit of the farmers.

Last year, AP Government fixed the price of Bt cotton seed per acre at Rs. 750. But due to short supply, some favourite varieties were on the black market and the same thing happens this year too, making Governmental price control a mockery. The sale receipts show only the official price and not the higher price paid by the farmer. The farmers pay higher price if they think that a particular variety is worth it, as for example, Bollgard II (BGII), the two Bt-genes stacked cotton. Last year, though BGII was not approved in AP, some farmers in the Warangal District bought BGII seed in Maharashtra at a high cost and cultivated. The Government should ensure that only the authentic seed of approved varieties of Bt cotton is sold through registered outlets, and ruthlessly weed out black marketing, to save the farmers from racketeers.

Last year there were several different varieties of Bt cotton on the market in the AP. The farmers were not sure of which to choose, and so planted different varieties on one- or two-acre plots each. Though the farmers might now be wiser from last year’s experience, the confusion continues as there are several more new varieties available this year. The Government should first advise the farmers on the choice of the varieties suitable to different regions in the State.

There is a flourishing market for illegal Bt cotton seed which may be cheaper than the legal varieties. There are also the problems of spurious Bt seed, often in authentic looking packages and Bt seed of poor quality, in terms of germination percentage, viability and plant establishment. The AP Government should ensure that the farmers get quality seed certified by its own Seed Testing Agency.

As the availability of water is critical at certain stages of the cotton crop, the farmer should be advised on the time, frequency and quantum of irrigation. Excessive pesticide application on Bt cotton, under panic or over enthusiasm, is wasteful, affects the health of the farm labour, harms non-target organisms and contaminates soil and water. Excessive fertilizer application, particularly under drier conditions, results in an accumulation of nitrates that are toxic to animals that feed on the crop stubble. Planting of a refugium is a scientific precaution against development of resistance by the American bollworm to Bt proteins, and a statutory requirement, which is largely ignored by the farmers. The AP Government should ensure that a refugium is planted by all the farmers and also represent to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee to permit non-cotton refugium (preferred by the farmers), which will be as effective as the non-Bt cotton refugium, since the American bollworm feeds on several other common crops.

Read the rest of this entry »

GMO Compass
June 22, 2007

Excerpt…

The slow approval procedures for GM plants in the EU likely will affect the European meat industry, according to an internal report of the European Commissions’ DG AGRI cited by Agrar Europe. While an average of only 15 months is needed for the approval of a new GM plant in the USA, 2.5 to 10 years are required in the EU.

This “asynchronous authorisation” already has caused trouble for food and feed producers, such as in cases of GM maize approved in the USA but not in the EU. However, a new soy bean variety, Roundup Ready 2 from Monsanto, is likely to have an impact unseen before. The main EU-importing countries USA, Argentina and Brazil are likely to have adopted the new variety by 2009/10, whereas the process will take several years in the EU and potentially will lead to a shortfall of soy imports.

Due to the importance of soy as feed in the farming of pigs and poultry, the report predicted extreme changes in the EU meat sector. In the worst-case scenario, the EU would be faced with an import deficit of 32 million tonnes, of which only approximately 20 percent could be substituted by increased local production….

Full article at GMO Compass.

Agbioworld
Ratnajyoti Dutta, NewsWire18
June 21, 2007

Here is the excerpt from an interesting article published by Agbioworld about agricultural biotechnology.

Excerpt…

NEW DELHI - Biotechnology application at field levels can help reduce yield gaps as demonstrated by the experience in Bt cotton, but steps should be ensured to make such application full proof before the field trials, experts said.

India has been battling dismal yields in almost all major crops with the total food grain output stagnating at around 200-210 mln tn in the last one decade or so.

“Technology can fill up existing yield gaps,” said Bhagirath Choudhary, National Co-ordinator of International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

For instance, though Punjab has a yield of 3,500 kg rice per ha, in Madhya Pradesh, it is at its lowest of 840 kg per ha.

National yield average in rice stands at around 2,000 kg per ha.

Egypt has achieved a yield of 9,500 kg per ha, the highest in the world, with hybrid varieties of rice developed locally.

Similarly, in wheat, the yield is highest in Punjab at 4,593 kg per ha and lowest in Maharashtra at 1,342 kg per ha.

The country’s average yield is around 2,753 kg ha.

Tamil Nadu has the highest oilseed yield of 1,600 kg, while Orissa has a dismal 450 kg per ha yield. National yield for oilseeds stands at 859 kg per ha.

“The basic issue is how to raise the national average yields to the best level and the lowest yield level to at least the national average,” Choudhary said adding that the answer lies in biotechnology.

In its latest estimate, the government has revised food grain output in the current crop year ending June at 211.8 mln tn as compared with the production target of 220 mln tn for this year set earlier.

Increased farm output in the next three or four years can come either through reducing existing yield gaps or expanding acreage, but the scope of raising output through area expansion is extremely limited, experts said.

Agriculture Secretary P.K. Mishra believes medium and long-term measures demand a focus on increasing the per hectare yield, and for which, better varieties of seeds are needed.

He rued the fact that there has not been any major breakthrough in high yielding varieties of seeds.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, at the National Development Council meeting last month, had also stressed on the need to reduce the yield gap in farm sector.

Reduction in yield gap is extremely critical for ensuring balanced regional growth and economic prosperity in rural areas.…

Full article at Agbioworld. Original press release at CrisilMarketWire.

Agbioworld
Robert Wager, Times Colonist (Victoria, Canada)
June 18, 2007

Excerpt…

Re: “Activists sound alarm over sterile zombie seeds,” June 13.

The ETC Group has long claimed biotechnology represents a threat to the public.

The problem is that exactly none of its dire predictions about biotechnology in general and genetically modified (GM) food specifically have come true.

The world is rapidly incorporating GM crops into agriculture systems and those who continue to push unsubstantiated fear are being ignored….

…GM crops are certainly not the bogeyman some would have us believe.

Full article at Agbioworld. The original article can be found at Canada.com.

The Hindu Times
June 17, 2007

Here is the excerpt from an article in The Hindu Times on agriculutural biotechnology.

Excerpt…

Mumbai, June. 17 (PTI): US biotech major Monsanto, which had earlier launched insect-resistant genetically modified BT cotton, plans to soon come out with drought-tolerant GM maize and cotton seeds, a senior company official said.

The drought-tolerant cotton and maize seeds were already undergoing field trials in the US. Once launched in India, it would help farmers as most of the agriculture in the country was rain-fed, Rajendra Ketkar, deputy managing director of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd, told PTI.

Monsanto was also developing weed-resistant GM cotton seeds, for which trials were going on in Australia, Ketkar said, adding this would take a couple of years.

India’s farm productivity is as low as one-third of the world average and raising yield using hybrid and genetically modified variety would help the country to raise output three times without bringing additional area under cultivation.

Ketkar claimed four million farmers have switched over to genetically modified BT cotton (bollgard) in nine states and nearly half of the 22 million acres under cotton cultivation in the country was now using this variety.

On the drought-resistant varieties, he said “this would be a great boost to farmers located in highly dry areas or who just depend on irrigation for their farming”….

Full article at The Hindu Times.

Hunger Artist Blog
June 16, 2007

Excerpt…

Greenpeace, an organization I generally respect and have contributed money to, really has its head up it’s ass on the subject of genetically engineered food. At least that how it sounds on the subject of a GE form of rice that has been modified to produce an important precursor to vitamin A (beta carotene) which is critical to the development of eyesight in humans.

Golden rice was developed by Peter Beyer and Ingo Portrykus and seed would be distributed for free to farmers (earning less than $10K per year) in countries where vitamin A deficient diets are responsible for at least 500K cases of childhood blindness each year. But because of opposition by Greenpeace and other knee-jerk anti GMO types, it’s been a hard sell. I suppose I might be less troubled by their opposition if it was based on sound reasoning but this hardly seems to be the case. Consider this explanation for opposing the distribution of Golden Rice taken from Greenpeace’s web site.

The human food safety of GE rice is unknown. However, the environmental risk of GE rice is clear. Golden Rice could breed with wild and weedy relatives to contaminate wild rice forever. If there were any problems the clock could not be turned back.

When the risk is high, the potential consequences devastating, and the benefits unclear, precaution is called for.

Human food safety? This is idiotic and a non-issue. Beta carotene is found in thousands of plants many of which have been consumed by humans for tens of thousands of years. Carrots are loaded with beta carotene; should we suppress the cultivation of carrots?

And how is the potential escape of a gene for beta-carotene into stocks of wild rice a risk? Even if you take the position that the genome of a wild plant should not be allowed to become “infected” with genes from an agricultural type (an absurd position anyway since genes from even widely unrelated organisms are moving between one form and another via transfer by viruses) you’d be hard pressed to prove that the presence of beta carotene poses any kind of risk….

Full article at Hunger Artist Blog.

Adam Smith Institute Blog
Aeon McNulty
June 14, 2007

Here is the excerpt of a blog entry posted on the Adam Smith Institute Blog about the benefits of genetically modified foods.

Excerpt…

In a brilliant breakthrough, Tokyo University researchers have modified a rice strain so that it vaccinates against cholera. It can be orally administered – you just eat the rice. It’s cheap to mass produce, can be stored at room temperature for over a year, and is completely safe. Since cholera kills millions, mostly children, each year, this GM rice vaccine will be a godsend. Once it has been swallowed, the rice’s protein body protects the vaccine from the body’s digestive enzymes.…

Full article at Adam Smith Institute Blog.