Plant Biotech Blog

GMO Pundit
September 30, 2007

CBC News GMO Debate OECD Summit Edinburgh 2000

For those who prefer movies and civilized conversation to the text and still graphics at this blogsite, Youtube provides a video debate about GM crops. In this link, Canadian scientist Alan McHughen and Soil Association’s Patrick Holden go head to head in Edinburgh.

Holden’s 2000 prediction, made during the interview, of the impending demise of GM crops has yet to pan out.

Source: GMO Pundit

KTIV
September 30, 2007

Every day thousands of children in developing nations die of starvation. But scientists at U.C. Davis are working on new technology to bring them and a lot of other people healthier food. The problem.. some wonder if it’s safe.

You’re looking at the latest in what’s called seed biotechnology. Critics call it food altering, but scientists believe engineering the gene make up of crops, like rice, can increase food production while also making it more nutritious.

Professor Kent Bradford says, “If we’re going to double or triple food production without taking over rain forests, marginal lands, areas for wildlife and so on, then we have to be able to produce crops very efficiently and at high yield.”

Researchers are convinced the new technology can help feed more people around the world in a way that’s better for the environment.

Jorge Mayer says, “You can reduce the use of pesticides by introducing a gene that is not available in the genetic diversity of a crop and reduce the use of pesticides.”

But critics from the environmental community say they are troubled by the concept of modifying the genetic code for crops.

Dan Jacobson says, “There’s nothing wrong with feeding the world. The questions and concerns that we have are - is it a safe way to feed the world? And that hasn’t been proven at all yet.”

But many scientists insist the technology is safe, and that genetically engineered crops are already in production on 200-million acres worldwide. Critics say they’d like that food to be labeled clearly for consumers.

Source: KTIV

Truth about Trade & Technology
Dean Kleckner, Chairman, Truth About Trade & Technology
September 28, 2007

GM crops are good for ladybugs.

That’s one of the fascinating results from a detailed study published recently in Science, the prestigious journal of the “Triple A-S,” also known as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Biotechnology is also good for bees and earthworms–and presumably for lots of other species as well. The implications for sustainable agriculture are significant. The study suggests strongly that biotechnology not only can play a helpful role in conservation efforts but may in fact represent an environmental improvement over traditional methods of pest control.

These new findings are the result of what scientists call a “meta-analysis.” It means that they looked at an ark-load of separate research and tried to draw common lessons from it. In this particular case, they examined 42 field experiments involving Bt crops in America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.

The biologists who culled through all of this data aren’t exactly a bunch of corporate shills, either. They’re associated with four environmentally-minded organizations: the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Studies Institute at Santa Clara University, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, and the University of California at Santa Barbara.

They did exactly what scientists are supposed to do: They set aside any biases they might have and took an honest look at the evidence.

Their most important observation can be summarized in a single sentence: “Nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with insecticides.”

In other words, biotechnology allows crops to defend themselves against specific pests, such as rootworm, without imposing collateral damage on other species, such as ladybugs. And it’s accomplished using less resources while protecting our environment.

“This is a groundbreaking study and the first of its kind to evaluate the current science surrounding genetically modified crops,” said Peter Kareiva, the chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy. “The results are significant for how we think about technology and the future of sustainable agriculture.”

To be sure, the researchers also found that certain species were more abundant in control (that usually means ‘weedy’) fields that weren’t touched by either biotechnology or insecticides. But that’s no surprise, and it doesn’t have much bearing on agricultural practices because almost everybody expects farmers to employ pest-control strategies, especially consumers who enjoy eating fresh produce.

The authors of the article in Science realized that their findings had the potential to kick up a controversy–mainly because anti-biotech activists are always looking for ways to discredit data they don’t like in their never-ending quest to frighten the public about biotechnology. Yet the scientists were determined to stick to the facts: “Regardless of one’s philosophical perspective on risk assessment for GM crops, enough experimental data has accumulated to begin drawing empirically based conclusions, as opposed to arguing on the basis of anecdote or hand-picked examples.”

They went on to call for “further study,” as research scientists are prone to do. This should terrify the anti-biotech activists because further study, conducted along the same truthful lines as the article in Science magazine, is like a dagger pointed at the heart of their lies.

Ordinary people who don’t have ideological axes to grind will see this evidence as good news. In an opinion poll just released by the International Food Information Council, 63 percent of Americans indicated that agricultural sustainability is important to them–and many specifically cited “reducing the amount of pesticides needed to produce food” as a priority.

The bottom line is that biotechnology is not merely compatible with sustainable agriculture–it can actually provide some of the sustenance.

Source: Truth about Trade & Technology

Food Navigator USA
September 27, 2007

Monsanto, a leading global biotechnology company, yesterday said it expects to almost triple its presence outside of the United States.

Currently, there are some 95 million acres outside the US planted with Monsanto’s biotech traits.

“We believe there is an untapped opportunity to grow our international traits business by approximately another 175 million acres,” said the firm’s vice president of global commercial business, Brett Begemann, yesterday.

“Strong global adoption of our proven traits coupled with recent approvals paves the way for expanded growth and sets the stage for new growth as we look to stack and upgrade these products in the coming years,” he told investors at the 16th Credit Suisse Chemicals Conference held in New York.

The forecasts highlight a growing global adoption of genetically modified crops, resulting partly from the increased acceptance of the technology as a means to address climate and yield challenges.

According to Begemann, Monsanto’s corn seeds technologies saw strong adoption in Argentina, Europe, South Africa and India, with growth in this field anticipated at one to two share points annually through the end of the decade.

In Brazil, the recent acquisition of Agroeste corn brands expands Monsanto’s market share to 40 percent. In addition, Brazilian farmers planted around 50 percent of acres with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean variety, which the company says is a “step towards” the 95 percent penetration levels it is aiming for.

In Argentina, Monsanto is aiming to have its stacked trait corn product planted on seven million acres by the end of the decade, while in India the firm believes its cotton trait product has the potential to be planted on 15 to 20 million acres in the period.

Although the popularity of biotech crops continues to grow as the market lets down certain barriers connected to the use of the technology, consumer demand continues to be a major challenge.

In an environment of a growing demand for all things natural, organic, ethical and sustainable, many consumers continue to turn their noses up at the idea of genetically modified foods, particularly in Europe.

In the US, the technology has generally been better accepted, although studies show that many consumers remain ignorant of the use of genetic modification in the food chain.

According to a new report by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), less than one quarter of American consumers believe that biotech foods are currently available in supermarkets, which highlights a huge gap in consumer education and informed choices.

This gap is largely a result of the fact that FDA regulations do not require the labeling of biotech foods, unless the use of biotechnology introduces an allergen, or if it substantially changes the food’s nutritional content.

Source: Food Navigator USA

AgBios
Sonu Jain
September 26, 2007

In a move that’s likely to have a significant bearing on the food processing industry, the Government has allowed processed food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and exempted it from regulatory approval.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a notification on September 11 that grants exemption to foodstuff whose end-products are not Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) — living organisms can be used to propagate or reproduce, like in seeds.

The notification has tremendous implication for the food processing industry which uses ingredients and additives made of genetically modified corn, maize and soya.

Until now, producers and importers had to go through the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the apex body for clearing all GMOs.

According to a GEAC member, the mandate of the committee is “environmental safety”. Since GMOs in this form do not propagate or grow, it “does not fall in their purview”. Rule 11 of the Environment Protection Act has been amended to make this exemption possible.

Regulators say it should be a “health-concern” and should be regulated as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules 1954 or under the new Food Safety and Standard Act 2005. But the system under this new Act is yet to become operational.

Both the Swaminathan Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology and Mashelkar Committee on r-Pharma have taken the view that the GEAC should be involved only in regulation of organisms or products where the end-product is a LMO.

This notification marks a major shift in the way GMOs are regulated in the country after being first introduced in the form of Bt cotton in 2002.

But activists are not too happy. Reacting to the new notification, Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign said: “This is introducing a new set of laxity in the system and violates our own laws.”

According to the new Food Safety and Standards Act, all genetically modified food need to have labels.

“This will mean that there will be no traceability and in case there is a problem, there is no way liability can be fixed. This is not desirable at all,” said Sahai. Though the US has been selling genetically modified food for nearly two decades now without labels, there have been stray cases of health hazards associated with processed GMOs.

The manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japan’s third largest chemical company, has already paid out over $2 billion in damages to EMS victims.

The import of soya oil for humanitarian aid has led to some controversy in the past. It was finally approved after certification from the country of export that it has been derived from Roundup Ready Soybeans. In case of crude soybean oil, the importer was asked to submit a series of analytical reports from government-approved laboratories.

For now, the lengthy regulatory route will no longer be required to import soya oil to India.

Infant formula to salad dressing

In the US, 7 out of 10 processed products on the shelf have some ingredient or the other that is a genetically modified corn or soya derivative. Labelling is not mandatory and unless specified as “organic”, it is likely to contain GMOs.

• Corn derivatives: Malt, corn syrup, baking powder, confectioner’s sugar, food starch and fructose sugar

• Soya derivatives: Bread, soya sauce, tofu, margarine, soya lecithin, protein isolates

• Common products: Infant formula, cereal, mayonnaise, crackers, candy, peanut butter, tomato sauce, ice cream, chips, chocolate, salad dressing, frozen yogurt

Source: AgBios

AgBios
September 24, 2007

Consumer familiarity and overall impression of food biotechnology remains little changed from a year ago in the United States, amidst major concern over food safety. Consumer familiarity and overall impression of food biotechnology remains little changed from a year ago in the United States, amidst major concern over food safety. According to a survey commissioned by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), there was little change in the American public’s perception of food biotechnology, and those who have an opinion are twice as likely to have favorable-as opposed to unfavorable- impressions.

“The public’s attitudes about food biotechnology remained constant despite a year of tremendous media attention on food concerns” said IFIC President and CEO David Schmidt. The national survey represents the 12th time IFIC has commissioned a survey on public attitudes about food biotechnology since 1997.

* Confidence in U.S. Food Supply

Overall confidence in the food supply remained at a high level with 69 percent of Americans indicating they were “very” or “somewhat” confident in the food supply compared to 72 percent last year. However, the number of Americans selecting “very confident” decreased from 21 percent in 2006 to 15 percent this year.

A sizeable number of Americans (25 percent) cited no particular food safety concern. Of the three-quarters of respondents who listed a specific food safety concern, disease and contamination topped the list at 38 percent; however, the biggest increase was in the “source” category, where concern about country of origin caused this category to rise from 6 percent of those citing a specific concern with the food supply in 2006 to 20 percent this year. Handling and preparation decreased as a food safety concern, cited by 26 percent of those citing a specific concern this year, dropping nine percent from last year’s survey.

* Animal Biotechnology

While the public’s overall favorable impression of plant biotechnology remained little changed in the past year, favorable impressions of animal biotechnology increased from 19 percent in 2006 to 24 percent this year. Nearly half of Americans (46 percent) said they were “somewhat” or “very” likely to buy meat, milk and eggs from cloned animals if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined they were safe. When the phrase “from cloned animals” was replaced with “from animals enhanced through genetic engineering” the number of Americans who were “very” or “somewhat” likely to buy these food products jumped to 61 percent. Both of these figures show an increase from the 2006 survey.

Increased awareness of potential positive impacts of animal biotechnology continues to correlate with increased support among consumers. Two-thirds of consumers (66 percent) said they had a positive impression of animal biotechnology when informed that “animal biotechnology can improve the quality and safety of food,” up from 59 percent in 2006. More than half of Americans (53 percent) reacted positively to the statement “animal biotechnology can increase farm efficiency,” up from 36 percent in 2005 and 47 percent in 2006.

* Labeling

Satisfaction with current information on food labels remained high in 2007. Only 16 percent of consumers mentioned information they felt was missing, with less than one percent specifically mentioning biotechnology.

Read the rest of this entry »

Check biotech
September 24, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa - DuPont today announced it is commercializing soybean varieties developed using a technology that increases yields by as much as 12 percent per acre. DuPont seed business Pioneer Hi-Bred is introducing five varieties with the technology for 2008 planting, pending wide-area product advancement trial results.

This announcement officially launches one of the company’s three soybean yield traits from its pipeline to commercial status. It will be commercially known as Accelerated Yield Technology(TM) (AYT(TM)). AYT(TM) uses proprietary molecular breeding techniques to rapidly scan and identify genes that increase yield and then incorporate them into elite soybean genetics.

“AYT(TM) allows us to take a giant step forward on our promise to deliver industry-leading improvements in soybeans. Our customers are seeing dramatic increases in Pioneer soybean variety yields that have never been seen in such a short period of time,” said William S. Niebur, vice president DuPont Crop Genetics Research and Development. “This technology embodies our business philosophy to increase the productivity and profitability of our customers to help them meet the rising demand for food, feed, fuel and materials.”

Until now, molecular breeding techniques used by the seed industry have only produced single-gene defensive traits in commercial varieties. There are multiple genes in complex networks that determine the final yield level achieved. AYT(TM) builds upon DuPont industry-leading molecular breeding techniques by allowing researchers to simultaneously select multiple genes to significantly boost yields. AYT(TM) is not transgenic so soybeans developed from this process are not subject to additional regulatory approvals.

The first AYT(TM) varieties are higher yielding versions of the newest Pioneer elite soybean genetics. Pending final trial results this fall, Pioneer hopes to introduce an AYT(TM) version of Pioneer(R) brand 94M80, which set the world record soybean yield of 139 bushels per acre in 2006. New unique genetics are also being developed using AYT(TM) and other molecular breeding techniques.

“Full implementation of AYT(TM) combined with molecular breeding technologies will enable Pioneer to make a new class of soybeans that has unprecedented yield potential relative to anything we have ever seen,” Niebur said. “These technologies allow us to incorporate a complete package of offensive and defensive characteristics that could make 100-plus bushel soybean yields a common occurrence in the very near future.”

About Pioneer

Pioneer Hi-Bred, a DuPont business, is the world’s leading source of customized solutions for farmers, livestock producers and grain and oilseed processors. With headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, Pioneer provides access to advanced plant genetics in nearly 70 countries.

About DuPont

DuPontis a science-based products and services company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture and food; building and construction; communications; and transportation.

Website: http://www.dupont.com/

Source: Check biotech

GMO Africa
September 24, 2007

Two weeks ago in this blog, I applauded a group of scientists from South Africa for discovering a maize (corn) variety genetically modified to resist Maize Streak Virus (MSV). Their discovery was first reported by the ScienceDaily.com.

MSV is, perhaps, the second gravest threat facing maize farmers in Africa and elsewhere after the stem borer. Scientists in the U.S. have already developed maize genetically modified to resist stem borer, and it’s already under commercial cultivation in several countries including South Africa. Known as Bt maize, it’s one of the most popular genetically modified food ever to have been developed by crop geneticists.

It’s quite a big deal that African scientists have developed transgenic maize that might be part of a solution to Africa’s food problems using modern agricultural biotechnology. This is a remarkable development because the central argument in the current debate about genetically modified (GM) crops is that they’re irrelevant to Africa. Critics argue that they have been developed by scientists, mainly from the U.S., who least understand Africa’s agricultural needs. Multinational biotech companies hoist them on Africa and other poor countries purely for profit, so the argument goes.

Personally, I am opposed to segregating scientific research, and I have written as much on this topic. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I faulted the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a nongovernmental organization led by the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, for trying to play down the relevance of agricultural biotechnology to Africa’s agriculture.

Scientific research, including in the field of agricultural biotechnology, knows no boundaries. The increasing interest in agricultural biotechnology research by scientists in developing countries attests to this.

I gather that Chinese scientists have, also, genetically modified maize that could help increase nutritional value of livestock feedstock, another testimony that developing countries are keen to explore potential benefits of genetically modified crops. According to a news article on the SciDev.net web site, the corn “…produces seeds containing high levels of an enzyme called phytase…which helps livestock to digest phosphorous.” Phosphorous is an important nutritional element found in corn and soy feeds.

The next step should be for developing countries to develop the necessary infrastructure to commercialize agricultural biotechnology innovations. China is well placed to attain this goal.

Much, however, needs to be done in Africa. For Africa to develop, scientific innovations must be commercialized. African governments and the donor community must join hands to ensure this happens. This way researchers will be encouraged to word harder. There’s no doubt that scientists in developing countries are increasingly engaging in agricultural biotechnology research. They must soldier on. There’s so much potential in this field that they can’t afford to neglect it.

Source: GMO Africa

GMO Food for Thought
Compiled by C.S. Prakash, Ph.D.
September 17, 2007

AgBioworld is comprised of agbiotech experts who take a keen interest in the latest news and events important to ag-biotech. This blog aims to be a reflection of those events and news stories that have captured our attention. Please share your comments and feelings on the current climate for biotech with us as well.
Best regards,
C.S. Prakash

Members discuss GMO rat research

Abstract: Members discussed a British Medical Journal article in which a flawed GM research study concerning rats was the topic.

One member noted that the article needed to be distributed widely until people realize that “anti-biotech scientists starve their rats.” Another member said that he didn’t think that the researcher intentionally starved the rats in question, but merely made the mistake of substituting too much test material into the rat’s diet. The member did agree that the researcher was still negligent and cruel to the lab animals.

Link to article being discussed: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/319/7217/1089.pdf

Soil Association’s attack of scientist Shane Morris

Abstract: Member commented on a letter Shane Morris sent to Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association in the UK in response to a letter written to James Wright, High Commissioner for Canada regarding Shane’s work. The letter asked the government of Canada to takes action against one of its employees, Shane Morris for causing two Web sites belonging to GM Watch and GMO Free Ireland to be shut down. Morris writes that he did not ask for the two sites to be shut down, but merely asked that defamatory comments about him on the Web sites be taken down. Their failure to do so is what caused to sites to be shut down.

One member commented that he found it interesting that the Soil Association, having anointed itself a defender of the right to free speech, is demanding that Canada take action against someone for engaging in free speech.

Link to Peter Melchett’s letter: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8256.

Pro-GM Farmers Assaulted with Tear Gas at Protest

Abstract: Members discussed an article in the Belfast Telegraph concerning the use of tear gas and batons on a group of pro-GM French farmers who wanted to protest an anti-GM picnic.

Several members questioned why such force was used on pro-GM farmers on public property and not on anti-GM protesters when they burn down fields of biotech crops, on private property. One member also noted that many Americans are not aware of this activity because it is not occurring in the US, mainly only in France and due to the language barrier Americans aren’t reading the articles.

Link to Belfast Telegraph article: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2898542.ece

Chronicle Online
By Krishna Ramanujan
September 19, 2007

Cornell researchers and Sathguru Management Consultants of India have successfully led an international consortium through the first phase of developing a pest-resistant eggplant. By about 2009 this eggplant is expected to be the first genetically engineered food crop in South Asia. Farmers have grown genetically altered cotton in India since 2002.

The engineered eggplant expresses a natural insecticide derived from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), making it resistant to the fruit and shoot borer (FSB), a highly destructive pest. The tiny larvae account for up to 40 percent of eggplant crop losses each year in India, Bangladesh and the Philippines, and other areas of South and Southeast Asia.

The work on the resistant eggplant is part of the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) II, which is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and administered by Cornell in partnership with Sathguru, a firm associated with Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS).

Cornell researchers from plant breeding, entomology, molecular biology, applied economics, communication, international programs and the Cornell Center for Technology Enterprise and Commercialization began collaborating on the development of the Bt eggplant in 2002. Another partner, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds, is on schedule to commercialize the genetically modified fruit by 2009.

“Cornell has worked effectively to facilitate a productive partnership between the public and private sectors that will make this technology available to eggplant producers at every economic level,” said Ronnie Coffman, international professor of plant breeding and genetics and director of International Programs in CALS.

“In five years, with support from Sathguru and Cornell, our partners were able to bring this flagship program to field trials and get food, feed and environmental safety approvals,” said K.V. Raman, Cornell professor of plant breeding.

All the safety tests for the Bt eggplant have been conducted in India, starting in greenhouses and now moving to large-scale field trials. The eggplant has been found to be nontoxic to fish, chickens, rabbits, goats, rats and cattle as well as nonallergenic. Ongoing tests will examine such questions as whether the plant will continue to resist FSB in the field and for how long; whether the Bt eggplant cross pollinates with other eggplants in the field and how far the Bt plants should be from other eggplant fields; whether nontarget insect populations are affected in the long term; and how yields compare with those of other eggplant varieties.

It is estimated that the Bt eggplant will reduce insecticide use by 30 percent while doubling the yield of marketable fruit (although eggplant is eaten as a vegetable).

Eggplant is a popular crop in the subtropics and tropics, especially in India and Bangladesh, where it is grown on about 1.5 million acres.

India and Bangladesh together expect to plant 110,000 acres of the FSB-resistant eggplant commercially by the end of 2010 and 650,000 acres by 2015. Economists from Cornell and other institutions report that the Bt eggplant would result in lower prices for consumers, higher yields for farmers and, by 2015, boost the Indian economy by $411 million and the Bangladeshi economy by $37 million.

“In spite of the green revolution in India, agricultural growth has stagnated there to less than 2 percent per year,” said Raman. “It is important for a land-grant university like Cornell to be engaged in the improvement of technologies and help create a road map that leads to agricultural and economic growth in places like South and Southeast Asia and Africa.”

Source: Chronicle Online