Plant Biotech Blog

Trendy Science
Helen Pickersgill
August 30, 2007

Genes make you what you are. All living things have them (humans have about 25,000) and they’re like blueprints.

So when you’re being made, you will get two arms and two legs, rather than wings and a beak. Stuff like that. Genetic modification means changing a gene so the organism does or has something different. It’s practically impossible to do in humans and it’s only attempted for the treatment of life-threatening diseases. In plants, however, it’s much easier and has spawned the current era of genetically modified foods.

I think the reason most people are afraid of GM foods is because they aren’t natural like the rest of the things we buy in the supermarket. Like microwave meals, meat and potato pies, and crisps for example. Jesting aside though, even normal fruit and vegetables aren’t strictly ‘natural’. It’s not like the raspberries grew from a stray seed that blew on a gentle breeze into a small crevice and was nurtured by the sun and the rain. What people don’t realise is that so-called natural produce has already been forced to change genetically over the years. It’s a bit like Hitler’s plan to make us all blonde haired and blue eyed, except much less controversial and thankfully far more successful. To do that you only let the blonde and blue eyed people breed. Same with the plants, only choose the ones that look the best and last the longest. These plants have been carefully cultivated for years in artificial environments to make them look as tempting as possible (at the expense of taste unfortunately). These new techniques of genetic engineering just make the process a lot more efficient. If a geneticist (don’t be afraid - I know a few and they’re charming people) can make my tomato taste like a tomato should, then I applaud them and have no qualms sticking them in my salad (the tomato not the geneticist obviously- scientists thankfully aren’t that crazy).

The original GM crops were developed more for the farmers and the retail industries than to make a consumer’s life happier and healthier. For instance, maize and rice have had genes added that make them cheaper and easier to grow. This brings me to another common concern over GM crops - the ability of plants to pass on genes to other plants, either directly, or indirectly via a plant pathogen. But this process is inefficient, and we aren’t even sure if it’s a significant threat and exactly what the outcome would be. It would be like the tomato passing on one of its genes, which makes it look, smell and taste like a tomato, to a potato planted next to it and the potato becoming a bit like a tomato. (Important note: humans cannot pick up genes into their own cells from a plant by eating it or standing next to it). The problems start when a plant is modified, for example, to cope with specific herbicides or insects. If these genes get released into the wild plant populations they will alter this delicate ecosystem, and it may not be able to cope. Worst-case scenario could be that we lose some species altogether and have some plants becoming dominant and growing uncontrollably. The stringent control of GM technologies is paramount to their safety and success, and there are numerous efforts to decrease these potentially devastating effects on the natural plant populations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Classically Liberal
August 30, 2007

Greenpeace activists in Thailand recently tried a publicity stunt to emphasize the imaginary threat of genetically engineered papaya. They were upset, as usual, about an suggestion by the Agriculture ministry to allow open field testing of GM crops.

So the Greenpeace scare mongers decided to take some GM papaya, eleven tons of it, and dump it in front of the Ministry blocking three of their gates.

The protest ran into a problem. It didn’t last long. A large crowd of onlookers rushed the pile of fruit and started packing it up and carting it off thrilled at the “free lunch” that Greenpeace had inadvertently provided them. Even officials from the Ministry grabbed some of the free food, apparently unconcerned about any supposed danger.

Greenpeace activists who tried to convince the crowd of the fictional dangers of the fruit were ignored as the happy recipients of the unintended largess took all they could carry.

On man who was sitting in his car at a stop light jumped out of the car to stock up on fruit. He told the Bangkok Post: “I’m ot scared of GM papayas. I’m scared I won’t have any to eat.”
The head doomsday prophet for the Greenpeace cult, Thailand diocese, complained that the reason people carted off the supposedly dangerous fruit was the government’s fault. Ms. Natwipha Ewasakul whined that this proves “the failure of government agencies to educate people about the possible health risks of genetically-engineered crops.”

Oh! In related news Mr. I.M. Twit bitched that the prevalence of radio signals is proof that government has not sufficiently warned the public that such signals disturb the alien life force that keeps the planet in harmony. “Continued use of radio signals could unbalance the whole planet,” said Twit, “This would lead to the eradication of gravity and we’d all die of thirst as the rain would fall upwards.” Mr. Twit showed how umbrellas could be used to catch the rising water to stave off dehydration.

And now back to the real twits.

Read the rest of this entry »

GMO Africa
August 30, 2007

Agricultural experts from across the world have congregated in Oslo, Norway, to discuss the future of Africa’s agriculture, including agricultural biotechnology. They are strategizing on how to kick-start the African Green Revolution. Being envisaged is an agricultural renaissance in Africa along the lines of Norman Borlaug’s 1950s Green Revolution, which transformed dozens of Asian and Latin American countries from paupers to food baskets.

I pray that the folks in Oslo exhaustively discuss every strategy that can make Africa’s agriculture shine. Africa needs to feed itself, but it wouldn’t succeed in this endeavor unless it abandons its antiquated farming methods.

Judging from the line-up of speakers attending the conference, good tidings abound. Norman Borlaug is attending, and this is good for Africa. A 1972 Nobel Peace Prize winner for his selfless efforts to feed the poor through innovative agricultural technologies such as crop genetic engineering, Borlaug is a man Africa must court at whatever cost. Borlaug never shy from reminding the world that modernizing agriculture is the surest way to enhance global food security.

In the ongoing debate about biotech agriculture, Borlaug has assumed an uncompromising position that Africa’s continued procrastination on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) endangers its own economic prosperity. African delegates attending this conference have a chance to hear from Borlaug what agricultural biotechnology is all about and how it can help farmers.

Then there’s Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Head of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Project. Like Borlaug, Sachs’ familiarity with Africa’s food problems and how they can be fixed is unrivaled. He has spoken fondly of integrating biotech agriculture into Africa’s agriculture. Sachs, a renowned agricultural economist, brings to the conference a wealth of experience in formulating agricultural policies for developing countries.

It is encouraging representatives of the recently formed Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are also attending this conference. Recently AGRA’s President, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, ruled out including genetically modified crops into its programs, a declaration that triggered uproar from the scientific community both in and outside Africa. AGRA’s interim Vice-President, Akinwumi Adesina, who’s in Oslo, might consider having tete-a-tete with Borlaug and Sachs on the issue. I, myself, have already advised AGRA against demonizing GM crops because, who knows, they might be part of the solution to Africa’s food problems.

Let the Oslo conference explore and discuss every possible solution to Africa’s food problems, including food biotechnology.

Source: GMO Africa

GMO Pundit
August 25, 2007

Biorefining of corn brings gelatin production into the 21st century
- American Chemical Society (press release), August 22, 2007

Here’s a great article from the American Chemical Society on plant biotechnology.

BOSTON - Scientists are reporting an advance toward turning corn plants into natural factories for producing gelatin to replace animal-sourced gelatin widely used by the pharmaceutical industry for manufacturing capsules and tablets. The advance, described today at the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society, may lead to a safe, inexpensive source of this protein for manufacturers who now rely on material obtained as a by-product of meat production.

Today, production of gelatin, a jelly-like substance, relies on the same fundamental methodology employed since commercial production began in the 17th century: Gelatin is derived from the break-down of collagen, which is a component of skin, tendon, bone, cartilage and connective tissue of animals. While there are no naturally occurring plant sources of gelatin, scientists have successfully modified plants, such as corn, to have a gene that results in the production of “recombinant” gelatin.

About 55,000 tons of animal-sourced gelatin are used every year to produce capsules and tablets for medicinal purposes. Plant-derived recombinant gelatin would address concerns about the possible presence of infectious agents in animal by-products and the lack of traceability of the source of the raw materials currently used to make gelatin. However, finding ways to recover and purify recombinant gelatin from plants has remained a challenge because only very low levels accumulate at the early stages of the development process.

Now, scientists at Iowa State University in Ames and FibroGen, Inc., in South San Francisco say they have developed a purification process to recover these small quantities of recombinant gelatin present in the early generations of transgenic corn. The method uses a four-step recovery system to separate the recombinant protein from other corn proteins with sufficient purity that its structure and composition can be verified, says Charles Glatz, Ph.D., a chemical engineer at Iowa State University who directed the work.

“Protein production from transgenic plants is a challenging process, with potential pitfalls all along the way,” Glatz says. “It is important to develop methods in the early stages of the development program to purify gelatin to demonstrate that it can be produced properly.”

The studies establish transgenic corn as a viable way to produce gelatin and potentially other products, Glatz says. In time, researchers may also be able to develop a variety of “designer” gelatins, with specific molecular weights and properties tailored to suit various needs of products containing gelatin.

“Corn is an ideal production unit, because it can handle high volumes at a low cost,” he says. In addition the recombinant gelatin is free from the safety concerns of using meat byproducts.

The purification process relies on chromatographic and filtration techniques, building upon methods developed by FibroGen to recover recombinant gelatin produced in yeast.

Glatz says ultrafiltration allowed the group to take advantage of the size difference between the recombinant protein and other corn proteins.

“This step greatly reduced the process volume for later chromatographic steps, and was crucial to achieving a high purification factor.”

The group is now working to refine the method and boost the overall recombinant protein yields in corn, he says. Though the procedure requires more testing, Glatz says the technique could someday be used to produce high-grade gelatin in a safe and inexpensive manner.

Overall costs could be further reduced by combining the production of gelatin in corn with the extraction of non-protein parts of the grain - such as oils and starches - that are now grown and harvested for biodiesel and ethanol production, he adds.

“Corn wouldn’t be planted for its gelatin alone, but those products could help off-set the cost of biorefineries that use corn to produce other products,” he says.

Cheng Zhang, a doctoral student at Iowa State University, presented details of the new purification process at the American Chemical Society meeting.

Source: GMO Pundit.

Biotech Brasil
August 25, 2007

The National Director for the Chilean Agricultural Research Institute (INIA), Leopoldo Sanchez, and the Executive Director for the Forestry Research Institute (INFOR), Marta Abalos, presented on August 13 the project “Generation and production of drought tolerant eucalyptus plants”. The entities developed the plant variety with the objective of making available to forestry companies and farmers from the Chilean arid regions, trees that can better resist situations of water shortage. The activity carried out in the INFOR headquarters in the city of Concepcion, has the intention of meeting the current and future demand for raw materials of the wood industry and related sectors. Currently the 1.8 million hectares located in the arid regions of O’Higgins and Bio-Bio is not adequately explored due to the long drought periods.

Source: Biotech Brasil

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
August 25, 2007

The anti-agribiotech lobbies insist that the proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), in pest resistant transgenic crops are not safe to non-target organisms, ignoring a host of detailed scientific studies which have shown that these proteins are safe to non-target organisms.

The book ‘Bacillus thiringiensis: biology, ecology and safety’, published in 2000, refers to over 8,000 research publications, in over 60 years. It contains extensive data on the safety of diverse Bt proteins to non-target organisms.

The activists conveniently ignore that for Bt proteins to be toxic to any organism, a set of
physico-chemical and biological pre-requisites are essential. In the absence of the pre-requisites in a particular organism, Bt proteins are safe to that organism.

What blew up the issue out of proportion was the much-publicized study by Losey, et al.,
(1999) which indicated that transgenic Bt corn pollen might harm monarch butterfly larvae, a conclusion immediately questioned. Sears et al., (2001) re-examined the issue, avoiding the flaws in the experimental design in the earlier study and concluded that impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations was insignificant. But the activists paid this only a Nelson’s eye.

In spite of all the evidence that Bt proteins were not the cause for a) the death of farm animals in the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP) in India, and b) the collapse of bee colonies in the US and Europe, both the instances were much publicized in support of anti-GE activism. Recent developments, however, seem to vindicate the safety of Bt proteins.

Read the rest of this entry »

GMO Pundit
AUSTRALIA: Oils ain’t oils – the benefits of GM oilseed crops
Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry
Press release.
August 24, 2007

Healthier oils, cheaper production costs and reduced environmental impacts may be within reach if genetically modified (GM) crops are adopted by the oilseed industry.

Releasing the Bureau of Rural Sciences report GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, said the adoption of gene technology could provide consumers with significant health benefits.

“Research is underway into the development of GM oilseed crops that produce healthier oils with better ratios of unsaturated fats, high levels of omega-3 oils normally sourced from fish and increased levels of essential amino acids and vitamins,” Mr McGauran said.

The world’s major oilseed crops are soybean, rapeseed (including canola), peanut, oil palm and sunflower. They are widely used in food, feed and industrial applications. Australia produces between two and three million tonnes of oilseeds each year, with canola and cottonseed being the major crops.

“Currently, GM cotton is the only approved GM oilseed crop to be commercially grown in Australia,” Mr McGauran said.

“Growing GM cotton is already proving to be both environmentally and economically beneficial to the cotton industry. Growing GM insect-resistant cotton significantly reduces the use of insecticides and production costs. Environmental and production benefits are also seen for GM canola varieties grown overseas.

“GM oilseeds also have the potential to cut production costs, increase product value and diversify the range of goods produced by the oilseed industry.

“With the acceptance of such GM oilseed varieties, Australia would successfully compete with GM canola and soybean varieties currently produced overseas.”

In Australia, all GM plants are assessed for risks to human health and safety and the environment and are regulated by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is responsible for carrying out safety assessments of GM foods to make certain they are safe for human consumption.

Copies of the report, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry can be downloaded from the BRS website.

Preferred way to cite this report:

Holtzapffel R., Johnson H. and Mewett O., 2007, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/367109/gm_oilseed_crop_report.pdf

Read the rest of this entry »

ISAAA
August 24, 2007

A 170 page- report on the "Economics of Bt cotton vis-à-vis traditional cotton varieties (Study in Andhra Pradesh)" by the Agro-Economic Research Centre of the Andhra University in India concludes that Bt farmers earned three times more than non-Bt cotton farmers in Guntur district  and eight times more in Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh commissioned the study three years ago to examine the advantages, disadvantages, cost of cultivation and net return to Bt cotton as compared to other cotton varieties in selected districts.

The study confirmed that the average Bt farmer had a 46 per cent higher yield and applied 55 per cent less pesticides than the non-Bt cotton farmer in Guntur district. Bt cotton farmers in Warangal district applied 16 per cent less pesticides and reaped 47 per cent more cotton yield as compared to non-Bt farmers Farmers noted that Bt cotton gave early high picking rate due to less pest susceptibility and boll color was also good.

Economics of Bt Cotton vis-a-vis Traditional Cotton Varieties in Andhra Pradesh

(Average exchange rate in 2006: Rupee 45 per US$)

For a copy of the report, contact Prof. LK Mohan Rao, Honorary Director, Agro-Economic Research Centre (AERC), Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. More information regarding biotech in India from Bhagirath Choudhary at b.choudhary@isaaa.org.

Source: ISAAA.

Business Report
Hans Lombard, Consultant to agricultural biotechnology industry
August 23, 2007

The so-called evidence of genetically modified (GM) food dangers raised by Andrew Taynton is absolute rubbish and unsubstantiated (GM food dangers: Here is the evidence, Business Report August 14).

Taynton is entitled to his opinion but certainly not to his “facts”. For “evidence”, he uses an example of rats that developed potentially precancerous cell growth after being fed GM potatoes and rats that developed stomach lesions, with seven out of 40 dying within two weeks.

These so-called studies were done eight years ago, then denounced and rejected by scientists as flawed and scientifically unsubstantiated.

The infamous potato study was done by professor Arpad Pusztai in the UK in 1998.

Pusztai, in the first place, did not use GM potatoes; there were no GM potatoes grown commercially in the UK at that time. He used ordinary potatoes that he injected with a lectin.

These potatoes were never intended to be developed as a food crop, as was pointed out by Taynton’s quoted source, The Lancet, in its July 3 1999 issue.

Surely Taynton must be aware by now that The Royal Society of London produced a peer review of Pusztai’s study and concluded the experiments were badly designed, poorly carried out and inaccurately interpreted due to technical limitations of the experiments
I challenge Taynton to produce substantiated scientific or medical evidence of any adverse effects humans, animals or the environment have suffered as a result of GM food over the past 12 years (nine in South Africa; his reference to 65 health risks documented in a book by Jeffrey Smith is a joke: the book is a farce and flawed).

Source: Business Report

GMO Africa
August 22, 2007

Ever heard of a phrase “food imperialism?” Opponents of modern crop genetic engineering regularly use it to discredit genetically modified (GM) foods, especially in developing countries. Since virtually all agri-biotech companies are U.S.-based, they reckon that they promote the America’s dream of colonizing the global food supply.

This argument resonates well with those xenophobic enough toward anything U.S. Yes, we get to hate GM foods not out of scientifically proven safety concerns, but because they merely originate from mighty U.S. We allow activist groups to pander to us that GM crops threaten the environment and biodiversity, without demanding evidence to that effect.

Out of fear it’s misplaced - we demand that our own homegrown scientists be left alone to develop indigenous solutions to our food woes. This is usually music to those who least appreciate the potential benefits of modern agricultural technologies such as crop genetic engineering.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with scientists developing homegrown solutions to their countries’ food problems. Who wouldn’t love such patriotic scientists? Such efforts, however, must not be mutually exclusive to scientific developments in other parts of the world. We’re in a global village.

Personally, I don’t subscribe to zoning scientific research. Research is research irrespective of its geographical location. If research into biotech agriculture in a U.S. lab results in more nutritious, drought resistant and high yielding food crops that can be used in Africa, Asia, Europe or Latin America, well and good.

I see no justification, for instance, to discredit genetically modified (GM) crops just because they emanate from the U.S or Canada. How excited I am to learn that scientists from South Africa have developed maize streak virus resistant transgenic maize! For a long time anti-GMOs activists have argued that the U.S. wants to hoist GM foods on unwilling Africans. Now we have our own GMO product. Will we fete or condemn it?

This is an indigenous scientific breakthrough. It’s what, I rightly guess, proponents and opponents of GMOs have been waiting for. I anticipate it will receive unequivocal endorsement. It’s INDIGENOUS.