Plant Biotech Blog

Fin24
July 31, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from an article published by Fin24 about South Africa’s resistance to labeling gm crops…

Cape Town - South Africa is resisting labeling its genetically modified foods because of fears it could raise prices and make food less available for consumers, a senior health official told parliament on Tuesday.

The country, Africa’s economic powerhouse and one of the few on the continent to accept genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are popularly known, does not currently require that the modified foods be labeled.

But pressure is growing on the government to consider doing so amid a growing debate over their use. Supporters say that GMOs could help solve many of Africa’s food problems, while critics say they are an experiment that puts millions at risk.

“If we had to label the foodstuffs, we have to determine the costs and benefits of it. Would it increase food prices and, therefore, decrease the accessibility of that foodstuff for a vast majority of people,” Renusha Chanda, an assistant director in South Africa’s department of health, said in a presentation.

However, Chanda added that the government believed that all GMOs currently on the South African market were safe, making labels unnecessary.

The government is considering changing GMO legislation and has heard appeals from environmentalists and farmers for tighter controls to halt the import and creation of such crops.

Zimbabwe, Zambia and several other nations have banned GMOs, saying that they could mix with indigenous crops.

Chanda said that more studies and research were needed to determine the costs and benefits of labeling GMOs. They are only mandatory when they include genes from fish, animals and humans or when they differ substantially in nutritional content.

…

Full article at Fin24.

Innovations-Report
July 30, 2007

Excerpt…

Scientists at the University of Oxford have paved the way for bigger and better quality maize crops by identifying the genetic processes that determine seed development through agricultural biotechnology.

Plant scientists have known for some time that genes from the maternal plant control seed development, but they have not known quite how. The Oxford research, supported by the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and highlighted in the new issue of BBSRC Business, has found at least part of the answer.

Working in collaboration with researchers in Germany and France, Professor Hugh Dickinson’s team found that only the maternal copy of a key gene responsible for delivering nutrients is active. The copy derived from the paternal plant is switched off. This gene encodes a potential signalling molecule found in the endosperm - a placenta-like layer that nourishes the developing grain, which is involved in ‘calling’ for nutrients from the mother plant, and so triggers an increased flow of resources. Similar mechanisms can almost certainly be expected in other cereals, and with cereal grain being a staple food across the world, the potential to harness this science to improve yields is clear.

Prof. Dickinson explains: “By understanding the complex level of gene control in the developing grain, we have opened up opportunities in improving crop yield.

“The knowledge and molecular tools needed to harness these natural genetic processes are now available to plant breeders and could help them improve commercial varieties further. For example, they can better understand how to successfully cross-breed to produce higher quality crops. The cereal grain is a staple food of the world’s population: with the changing climate and growing population, the need for sustainable agriculture is increasingly pressing.”

…

Full article at Innovations-Report.

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 30, 2007

Excerpt…

Farmers of all types — from an Amish tobacco farmer in the United States to a corn farmer in the Philippines — continue to embrace biotech crops because they help improve living standards.

Amish farmer Daniel Dienner says he earns nearly twice as much planting a biotech nicotine-free tobacco as he would planting a conventional variety — $1.50 per pound vs. 80 cents per pound. Meanwhile, Filipino farmer Edwin Paraluman says he earns about 50 percent more by planting biotech corn than he did growing conventional varieties.

Their experience is shared by farmers from around the world. Perhaps the most telling statistic about the economic benefits of biotech crops is how quickly these global farmers have embraced the new technology.

An estimated 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries now plant biotech crops — up from 7 million farmers in 18 countries in 2003, according to the nonprofit International Association for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

“This is an unwavering and resolute vote of confidence in the technology from … farmers, who are masters in risk aversion and have consistently chosen to plant an increasing hectarage of biotech crops year after year after year,” wrote ISAAA chair Clive James in a January 2005 report, “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004.”2

Farmers have adopted the technology so quickly for several simple reasons: Biotech crops improve yields, cut costs and reduce spraying. Not only do these benefits improve farmers’ bottom lines, but they also save time — improving their quality of life by giving them more time to spend with their families and to pursue other activities.

A study by a University of Minnesota food and trade policy analyst reported that the global commercial value of biotech crops in the 2003-2004 crop year was US$44 billion — a value that is expected to grow to $210 billion by the end of the decade.

“As far as complex traits such as drought tolerance are concerned, Australian breeders are reliant on the important work of Syria-based Australian researcher Dr Ken Street and his colleagues, who sample genetic resources from the world’s original cereal crops for use in breeding,” he said.

Dr Street, a scientist with the International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), told today’s Agriculture Australia conference that genetic resources were vital for economic sustainability and food security – “a major understated threat from global warming”.

“This is a survival issue: for many people around the world it means avoiding starvation; for farmers in countries like Australia it means economic survival,” he said.

…

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Checkbiotech
July 30, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from an article about a new Australian publication intended to inform each side of the biotechnology debate of recent biotechnology advances. The report states that millions of farmers around the world use gm crops…

There are 10 million farmers around the world using genetically modified crops, according to a new publication released by Australia’s peak grains research body aimed at informing the contentious biotechnology debate.

Launched at the Agriculture Australia conference in Melbourne, FutureCrop is from the the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

It explores recent biotechnology advances and investigates developments overseas, where more than 10 million farmers have found ready markets for genetically modified crops.

GRDC managing director, Peter Reading, said his organisation had closely monitored the biotechnology debate and was aware of industry positions that favour and oppose GM.

“FutureCrop provides a snapshot of arguments that define the GM debate, and demonstrates that both GM and conventional non-GM pathways have important roles to ensure our grains industries – and their communities – remain viable,” Mr Reading said.

Using GM and non-GM processes, biotechnology provides opportunities to produce higher-value crops with health and industrial benefits, and to mitigate economic and environmental challenges such as climate change.

“Biotechnology has equipped breeders with molecular markers to identify desired gene combinations early in the breeding cycle, making crop improvements through conventional breeding more efficient,” Mr Reading said.

“It also has produced the tools to potentially further enhance breeding through genetic modification by broadening the range of traits that are available to breeders and by offering these traits in a format that can be readily implemented.”

However, while Australian breeders have embraced molecular markers as a routine breeding tool, Mr Reading said they were not making use of GM technologies because there is no clear path to market in Australia for GM.

…

Full article at Checkbiotech.

Checkbiotech
Hans Lombard
July 27, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from a great article by Hans Lombard on agricultural biotechnology in Africa…

AFRICAN scientists and agricultural organizations yesterday welcomed the clarification by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) that the organization “supports the use of science and technology” – including genetic modification (GM) technology – “to aid Africa’s smallholder farmers in their urgent efforts to end widespread poverty and hunger.”

Five major organizations working in agriculture – AfricaBio, the Africa Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF), Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (AHBFI), Biotechnology-Ecology Research and Outreach Consortium (BioEROC) and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) – said the AGRA position is consistent with that of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in its report on biotechnology which states that “regional economic integration in Africa should embody the building and accumulation of capacities to harness and govern modern biotechnology.”

AGRA says in a statement that its mission “is not to advocate for or against the use of genetic engineering. We believe it is up to governments, in partnership with their citizens, to use the best knowledge available to put in place policies and regulations that will guide the safe development and acceptable use of new technologies, as several African countries are in the process of doing.”

The Alliance said its mission is to use the wide variety of tools and techniques available now to make a dramatic difference for Africa’s smallholder farmers as quickly as possible. It said it has chosen to focus on conventional breeding techniques but would “consider funding the development and deployment of such new (GM) technologies only after African governments have endorsed and provided for their safe use.”

The Alliance clarified that conventional breeding was its starting point, however it pointed out that since science and society are continually evolving, and it does preclude future funding for genetic engineering as an approach to crop variety improvement when it is the most appropriate tool to address an important need of small-scale farmers.

Last week, AGRA’s new president, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was reported as having ruled out the GM technology as one of AGRA’s strategies in the fight against poverty and hunger in Africa. Anti-GM organizations hailed his statement as a sign that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – a funding partner to AGRA – has changed its strategy on the GM technology.

South African-based AfricaBio President, Prof. Diran Makinde, said “African agricultural organizations welcome the clarification from AGRA. We cannot fault their strategy and we agree that conventional plant breeding has not received sufficient attention or investment in Africa, leaving untapped the inherent genetic potential available in African crops.”

Africa Harvest CEO, Dr. Florence Wambugu, said “Africa’s leaders had asked African scientists to come up with a consensus position on this new technology. The NEPAD report clearly states that the continent must have the freedom to innovate. Many countries and regional organizations are busy domesticating the NEPAD Biotechnology Policy and will resist any effort to erode their freedom to innovate….”

Full article at Checkbiotech.

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 27, 2007

Excerpt…

Look no further than to America’s recent past to discover the long-time link between chronic disease and food.

As recently as the 1920s, pellagra — which caused scaly skin, intestinal distress, depression and death in about 5 percent of cases — devastated areas of the South. It killed thousands and afflicted hundreds of thousands more. For the first third of the 20th century, there were many theories about the cause of the disease, including poor sanitation, rotten corn and that it was a virus transmitted by human contact.

But it wasn’t until 1937 that a University of Wisconsin researcher discovered that the disease was actually caused by a deficiency in a B complex vitamin, nicotinic acid, which later became known as niacin.

During World War II, white bread was enriched with niacin, which so thoroughly eliminated any remaining traces of pellagra that the disease is now sometimes referred to as “The Forgotten Plague.”

Today, some believe that what the fortification of foods did to vastly improve health in the 20th century, biotechnology can do for the 21st century.

“Biotechnology can help improve the health-promoting profile of food by increasing levels of desirable substances and decreasing allergens and other factors that increase the risk of disease,” Catherine Woteki, who has a Ph.D. in human nutrition and is also dean of Iowa State University’s College of Agriculture, told participants at a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

Woteki says it’s believed that dietary factors and the lack of physical activity in adulthood are related to about a third of all cancer deaths in the United States, 4 as well as many other chronic diseases.

“Scientific evidence has shown diet to be a factor in many of the leading causes of death in the United States, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes and kidney disease,” she says.

But what the exact link is between diet and many of these diseases is still not fully understood.

Sterols and polyphenols, micronutrients that are found in red wines as well as in fruits and vegetables, for example, are believed to help prevent heart disease. There are also many other substances in fruits and vegetables that are believed to stave off disease.

Once the role of these disease-preventing micronutrients is fully understood, plant biotechnology can be used to boost their levels in food to improve health — just as the fortification of food did in the 20th century….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 27, 2007

Excerpt…

Farmers now have new tools to help prevent soil erosion and help keep our rivers clean.

A tractor pulling a plow across a field is an enduring image of American agriculture. For generations, farmers have plowed their fields to prepare the soil for planting, and to fight harmful weeds and insects. But plowing can also expose topsoil to erosion. And, as topsoil is blown off by wind or washed away by rain, crops are robbed of nutrients they need.

“As topsoil is blown off by the wind or washed away by the rain, crops are robbed of nutrients they need.”

What is more, eroded topsoil can end up in local rivers and streams where it settles to the bottom and clouds the water. Fish, mussels, and other aquatic wildlife and vegetation suffer when water is filled with sediment. Some species of fish have even become endangered from soil runoff because, when sediment is thick, they are unable to lay their eggs. While some river species suffer from the soil runoff, other plants like algae benefit from the fertilizer in the soil so much that they can overwhelm the natural ecosystem.

Over the years, farmers have made great strides in reducing topsoil erosion through the use of windbreaks and waterways, as well as by plowing less frequently. Today, farmers have a new tool to help save topsoil. It is called biotechnology. Some biotech crops are now making it easier and more cost-effective for farmers to adopt one of the best methods for conserving the soil — reduced plowing.

In fact, farmers have planted biotech crops that fight weeds and insects on millions of acres. These crops have built-in defenses against weeds and insects, so in some cases - like biotech cotton and soybeans - less plowing is required. In fact, some farmers have reduced plowing from as often as eight times a year to one or two times a year, dramatically decreasing soil erosion….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Truth About Trade & Technology
Dean Kleckner
July 27, 2007

Excerpt…

The day after President Bush presented Norman Borlaug with the Congressional Gold Medal, the recipient of our country’s highest civilian honor described the great challenges that await agriculture in the 21st century: “persistent poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries, changing global climate patterns, and the use of food crops to produce biofuels.”

He might have added another category: meddlesome former United Nations officials who issue confusing statements.

That’s because Kofi Annan, who stepped down as the UN’s secretary general at the start of this year, is busy telling African farmers that they don’t need biotechnology. Or so it would seem.

Annan is now Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and last week he appeared to take a stand against the Gene Revolution: “We in [AGRA] will not incorporate GMOs in our programs,” he said.

A newspaper in Kenya responded to his announcement with this headline: “Annan rules out use of GMOs in the war on hunger in Africa.”

But did Annan really mean what he was quoted as saying? Some have suggested that he didn’t–and that he was merely responding to the reality that African farmers can’t afford genetically enhanced seeds and that some African governments lack the regulatory mechanisms to take proper advantage of the latest agricultural technology.

If Annan was misquoted or misinterpreted, then he has my sympathy: As we all know, the media sometimes gets the facts wrong.

Yet there’s one man who can clear up this mix-up–assuming it really is a mix-up–and that’s Kofi Annan.

So far, I haven’t heard him issue the full-throated endorsement of GM crops that a leader truly committed to the future of African farming would deliver.

Annan should take his cue from the father of the Green Revolution. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, Borlaug hailed “the advent of a Gene Revolution that stands to equal, if not exceed, the Green Revolution of the 20th century.”

As it happens, AGRA has many good ideas. They recommend an improved infrastructure for Africa, better market opportunities for its farmers, the nurturing of native-born scientists, and smarter government policies – all good common sense suggestions. These strategies are what prompted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation to invest $150 million in its program last year.

Read the rest of this entry »

For those of you subscribing to our web site through our RSS Feed, we have some news for you. We’ve recently moved over to Feedburner to better serve our visitors. You can reach this new feed by clicking the “Subscribe to RSS Feed” link on the right or by going to http://feeds.feedburner.com/FbaeBlogRssFeed. If you are currently subscribing to FBAE Blog, we ask that you move over to this new system.

Thank you.

The University of Arkansas
July 26, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from a great article discussing plant biotechnology research being conducted by graduate student, Tameka Bailey, at The University of Arkansas.

Studying plants at molecular level allows graduate student to understand response to stressors, uncover gene.

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - A University of Arkansas graduate student is helping rice farmers grow better crops by studying the plant at its most fundamental molecular level.

Cell and molecular biology major Tameka Bailey’s research focuses on a certain type of proteins and the molecular mechanisms that trigger rice’s response to stressful conditions, such as drought, high salinity or a biological disease called rice blast. Understanding how plants respond to these stressors will help scientists and farmers develop better ways to grow rice in less than optimal conditions.

“The proteins have so much power in the cell, it’s amazing,” Bailey said. “They can change the whole fate of the plant.”

Working with Yinong Yang, a former professor of plant pathology in the Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences who is now at Penn State University, Bailey uncovered the gene responsible for a molecular mechanism that helps regulate rice blast resistance through the production of ethylene, an organic gas found in nature. Bailey also studied proteins called mitogen-activated protein kinases. These proteins regulate the plants’ response to external stimuli, such as drought or disease. The particular type of kinase Bailey studied is the last one in a cascade of kinases that convert signals from receptors into responses from the plant.

She found that these proteins regulate the plants’ production of an acid called abscisic acid, which led to stress tolerance in drought and high salinity conditions, a trait that appears to be conserved in other types of plants. Bailey isolated and characterized these proteins, which are responsible for activating the plant’s response to stress.

To give rice plants a boost in their ability to tolerate stressful conditions, Bailey used genetic engineering to create plants that would express a great deal of the protein. To do this, she inserted extra copies of the protein kinase DNA into the DNA of a rice plant. The transgenic rice plant then expressed an abundance of that particular protein. In contrast, Bailey produced transgenic plants where the protein kinase was suppressed to see how the plants responded to stress in the absence of the protein of interest. Her studies showed that the extra boost of protein kinases led to increased drought tolerance….

Full article at The University of Arkansas.