Plant Biotech Blog

Truth about Trade & Technology
October 31, 2007

The European Commission on Wednesday gave the go-ahead for genetically modified strains of maize and sugar beet to enter the European market.

The EU’s executive arm took the decision as the 27 member states had failed to agree whether to back or ban the GMO crops.

The introduction of the sugar beet and three strains of maize into the food and feed markets, brings to 15 the number of GMO items authorised for use, though not cultivation, throughout the EU.

Where there is no agreement on such cases among the member states the Commission is empowered to take the decision in line with scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

“All of the GMOs received positive safety assessments from EFSA and underwent the full authorisation procedure set out under EU legislation,” the Commission said in a statement.

The authorisations are valid for 10 years, and any products from the GMOs are subject to the EU’s labelling and traceability rules.

Among the GMO maize varieties given the green light is the Herculex strain, developed by DuPont businesses, which is genetically modified to produce an insecticide and resist a disease which can ravage crops.

“Today’s approval is encouraging and we look forward to continued progress in the EU biotech approval process,” Dean Oestreich, vice president of US DuPont, said in a statement.

“We urge the Commission to ensure similar treatment for cultivation applications so that Europe’s farmers can enjoy the same benefits as millions of other farmers around the world,” he added.

The maize was the centre of a fierce debate earlier in the year after its illegal presence was discovered in Rotterdam in a cereal shipment from the United States, where it had already been authorised.

In all 15 GMO products have been authorised in the European Union since a moratorium was lifted in 2004 after the adoption of new rules on labelling and traceability.

While these products have been authorised for import and sale, so far no GMO crops can be grown on a commercial basis in the 27 member states.

A Commission decision is pending on the growing of a genetically modified potato.

Source: Truth about Trade & Technology

Truth about Trade & Technology
By Dean Kleckner
October 26, 2007

“We can’t all be heroes,” said Will Rogers. “Somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.”

I’d be happy to sit on the curb and clap–but first a hero has to show up. After reading an article about the 2008 presidential candidates and biotech-food labels in last week’s Des Moines Register, I’m now worried that I may be in for a long wait.

The Register asked the leading candidates, as determined by their poll-tested popularity among Iowa voters, whether they would support a law requiring special labels for GM foods. Unfortunately, not a single one of them replied with the correct answer, which is to oppose labels because they’re completely unnecessary.

Three of the four top Democrats said that they’re in favor of labels: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. The only one who didn’t say he was in favor was Barack Obama, who didn’t respond to the question.

On the Republican side, three out of four said that they had “no position” on the issue: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Mike Huckabee didn’t reply.

It might be said that “no position” is better than outright support for labels, on the grounds that it leaves room for the possibility of opposition. That’s true, as far as it goes–but it isn’t far enough.

I’ll be sitting on the curb and holding my applause until one of these politicians steps forward and does the right thing.

Warning labels for biotech foods are a very bad idea for a simple reason: There’s nothing to warn against.

Many Americans still don’t realize it, but they eat GM food just about every day. They’ve been doing it for years. Currently, more than 90 percent of the soybeans and nearly 80 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified, according to the Department of Agriculture.

By now, Americans have eaten trillions and trillions of meals that include GM components. There isn’t a single documented case of anybody so much as sneezing from them. They’re perfectly safe for human consumption.

Read the rest of this entry »

GMO Pundit
Philip Hopkins
October 19, 2007

A group of farmers is, according to this story, seeking to develop frost-resistant, genetically modified wheat using a gene from Antarctica. The Molecular Plant Breeding Co-operative Research Centre will conduct the research for the farmers, who have formed a company, Green Blueprint International. GBI has lodged a prospectus to raise $2 million to fund the research.

The story says that the partners aim to develop frost-resistant wheat varieties using a gene from Antarctic hairgrass and explain that the frost-tolerant gene creates a protein that inhibits icy crystal growth in the plant.

Chief executive of the Molecular Plant Breeding CRC Glenn Tong was cited as saying genes for these ice recrystallisation proteins were not unique to Antarctic hairgrass and were also in wheat and barley, but researchers hoped the Antarctic genes would lead to better ice crystal inhibition.

West Australian farmer John Stone said 75 farmers were already part of the scheme, which aimed to have 100 investors contribute about $20,000 each.

Source: GMO Pundit

Biotechnology Market News
October 19, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles O. Holliday, Jr., today told participants at the World Food Prize that biotechnology will enable the world to keep pace with the rapid growth in global demand for food, feed, fuel and materials.

“Biotechnology is the most powerful tool available to secure a safe, sustainable food and energy future,” Holliday said. “It holds the promise to deliver the world more, higher quality grain with less environmental impact.”

The World Food Prize is the foremost international award recognizing the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world.

Holliday said, “Global population growth is driving increased demand not only for food but also for renewable energy and materials, for greater safety and security, and for increased connectivity.” Holliday said that as a market-driven science company, DuPont is working on solutions to meet needs in all of those areas. He underscored that DuPont science includes capabilities in chemistry and biology, as well as in emerging fields such as nanotechnology.

“In the process, DuPont will maintain its strong commitment to sustainability,” Holliday said, outlining DuPont’s 2015 sustainability goals which encompass market-facing objectives - such as increasing the number of environmentally smart products from research and development - as well as continuing the company’s progress in reducing the environmental footprint of its products and operations.

Holliday said that DuPont is using biotechnology to improve farmer productivity and profitability, increase grain quality and yield and enhance biofuels production. “The DuPont research pipeline is full of biotech traits that will increase yields, enhance nutrition, improve biofuels production, tolerate drought and require less nitrogen,” he said.

He noted that plant biotechnology has been adopted faster than any other technology in the history of agriculture. “Farmers around the world have recognized the significant value of biotechnology and have adopted its use at an amazing pace,” Holliday said.

DuPont also is developing new technologies for the growing renewable fuels market, such as improving biofuels production through improved seed and crop protection products; developing new technologies to allow conversion of cellulose to biofuels; and developing next-generation biofuels.

DuPont is 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.

DuPont

CONTACT: Doyle Karr of DuPont, 1-515-270-3428,
doyle.a.karr-1@usa.dupont.com

Web site: http://www.dupont.com/

Source: Biotechnology Market News

AgBios
By Gil Gullickson
October 18, 2007

Soybeans were first on the traits bandwagon when industry introduced glyphosate-tolerant soybeans in 1996.

“We live in a glyphosate-tolerant world,” says Gene Kassmeyer, head of Syngenta’s soybean product line. “Sales of non-glyphosate tolerant soybean varieties are less than two percent.”

Corn quickly surpassed soybeans with traits resistant to glyphosate, European corn borer and corn rootworm. Now, traits are swinging back to soybeans’ corner.

Kassmeyer recently visited with Agriculture Online about several soybean traits and new developments that are on deck in the next few years. They include:

• Soybean aphids resistant varieties that are slated to be released in 2009.
• Soybean cyst nematode resistance. Syngenta plans to launch a new source of SCN-resistant soybean in 2010.
• New herbicide tolerances. Kassmeyer says Syngenta has a several new herbicide tolerances with a three to six year time horizon that will provide growers with new ways to control weeds.

Syngenta is not alone in developing new weed control technology. Pioneer Hi-Bred International and its parent company, DuPont, plans to launch its alternative glyphosate technology, Optimum GAT. in soybeans in 2009 and corn in 2010. BASF recently announced that it is aims to register BAS 800H, a corn and soybean herbicide with a new mode of action, in the United States by 2009 or 2010.

Syngenta plans to continue to bring varieties to market each year with improved resistance to all major soybean diseases, especially Sudden Death Syndrome. Other maladies include iron chlorosis, white mold, and phytophthora root rot. Syngenta also plans to launch a variety with Asian rust tolerance by 2012.

The industry is also focused on output traits aimed at consumers. Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Monsanto have had low-linolenic varieties on the market for several years. These soybeans contain low amounts of linolenic acid. These types of soybeans can reduce or eliminate transfatty acids in foods by replacing hydrogenated oils. Transfatty acids have been linked to obesity and heart disease.

Syngenta aims to launch ultra-low linolenic soybeans in 2009. These soybeans contain less than one percent linolenic acid.

Seed costs will increase

All this means rising seed costs. “The retail price for beans today is in the mid-$30s (per bag) to the upper $30s before discounts,” says Kassmeyer. “In the pre-glyphosate days, seed costs were $12 to $15 per bag.”

Although this might pain your pocketbook, there’s an upside in that it forces farmers and seed dealers to think more about soybean variety selection and inputs to protect those varieties.

“It used to be you’d spend quite a few hours selling corn hybrids, and maybe 10 minutes selling three pallets of beans,” says Kassmeyer.

No more. Now, the increasing emphasis on traits and complex breeding techniques is prompting farmers to look more closely at soybean variety selection, he says. It’s a way of boosting production so soybeans can stay competitive with corn when it comes to planted acreage. The biofuels market will continue to pressure soybean acres, he adds.

“The real dilemma in soybeans is how to get more production out of each acre,” says Kassmeyer. Syngenta aims to meet this dilemma through its genetics, traits, and crop protection products, he adds.

Source: AgBios

C Kameswara Rao
FBAE
Bangalore
October 18, 2007

Pest resistant Bt cotton is currently the only genetically engineered (GE) crop in commercial cultivation in India. The Bt cotton with cry 1Ac predominates, although there is a small volume of cotton varieties with two staked genes, Cry 1Ac and Cry 1Ab, in some zones of the country.

Bt cotton cultivation started with three varieties on 72,000 acres in 2002-03. According to the seed industry sources, Bt cotton cultivation in India grew to about 140 varieties on 15 million acres in the 2007-08 crop season. That the majority of the farmers do prefer Bt cotton is no longer in doubt, as also that they face several difficulties that can be removed by Governmental intervention.

The Indian Seeds Act, 1966 only regulates notified varieties, but Seed Certification by Governmental Agencies is optional. There is a comprehensive Seeds Bill, 2004 which provides for registration, certification and seed testing, regulated by a Central and several State Committees.

Under the Seed Bill, 2004, a transgenic variety that was cleared by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) would have to be Registered. Transgenic crop varieties involving ‘Genetic Use Restriction Technology and Terminator Technology’ are prohibited. Certification of Registered seed for quality and reliability by recognized agencies would be mandatory. Sale of seed of spurious transgenic varieties and un-Registered and un–Certified seed attracts punitive provisions.

The Seed Bill, 2004, has been in cold storage for years on account of pressure from groups with conflicting interest, primarily the Seed Industry on one side and the Civil Society Organizations and Farmers’ Associations which claim to speak for the farmers, on the other. When this Bill comes into force, there would certainly be a far greater protection of farmer and consumer, but it looks like the Governments have adequate power to act even within the purview of the Seed Act of 1966 and consumer protection laws that are currently in force, to ensure productivity through quality and reliability of the seed of GE crops. Some important interventions are:

1. Mandatory Registration and Notification of GE crop varieties: Provision should be made for mandatory registration and official notification of a GE seed/crop, at least by the stage of approval by the Review Committee for Genetic Modification (RCGM) and/or GEAC, for multi-location open field trials. Registration and notification should be a requirement before GEAC approves a transgenic crop for commercialization.

   Currently, Bt cotton is not notified anywhere in India and it was recently deleted even from the list of Essential Commodities.

2. Mandatory Seed Certification:
   By the time a GE crop is approved for commercialization, the Seed Certification Agencies in different States should be prepared to evaluate seed of the transgenic crop for seed germination, seedling viability, agronomic factors (and yield potential) and more importantly the suitability of a particular variety for cultivation in different specified regions of the State.

   An infrastructure of several seed testing labs should be created both in the public and private sectors to handle the voluminous job.

   Currently, in no State, Seed Certification Agencies are involved in evaluation and certification of Bt cotton seed.

3. Sale of Authentic Seed in Authentic Containers and Outlets:
   It should be ensured that the seed of a GE crop is sold at the officially determined prices through recognized private and/or public sector agencies, which would be responsible for the sale of authentic seed in authentic containers designed in such a way that they cannot be reused.

   Only in Andhra Pradesh, there is an officially fixed price for Bt cotton seed and in no State there is the system of recognized outlets to sell the farmers authentic seed and there are complaints of reuse of containers. Reduction in the cost of the seed has certainly helped to increase acreage under Bt cotton.

4. Control of Black Market, and the Illegal and Spurious Seed Market:
   Very strict preventive and deterrent measures should be taken to root out black market in the authentic seed and to prevent the sale of illegal and spurious GE seed.

   The sale of illegal and spurious Bt cotton seed is rampant through out the country, more particularly in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. During the 2006- 07 cotton season about 75 per cent of Bt crop in India was from illegal seed. Illegal Bt cotton seed trade has drastically come down in the 2007-08 season to 1.5 million acres, against 15 million acres of authentic seed. Availability of a large number of varieties at far lower prices than in the past has contributed to reduce illegal seed market, but spurious Bt seed still flourishes.

5. Farmer Education and Guidance:
   A mechanism should be put in place, to advise the farmer on a) the suitability of a transgenic variety to his land, b) crop husbandry more particularly the application of fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and weeding, and c) precautionary measures such as the refugium. This mechanism should include the seed developer/distributor, extension personnel of the State/District officers of the Department of Agriculture and the scientists of the Agricultural Universities or their research centres who are experienced in the particular crop, in different parts of the State.

   Currently, the Bt cotton farmers have no benefit of any professional advice and are left to their fate, once the seed is sold. Presently, there is a glut of Bt cotton varieties, with the farmer being no wiser about which variety he should cultivate and how, in a situation of ‘deskilling’. Bt cotton is being grown in areas where it should not be grown, particularly as a rain fed crop. The farmer often does not plant a refugium and indulges in panic excessive insecticide application.

The Civil Society Organizations should take up these issues to help the farmer, instead of a futile campaign against GE crops.

C Kameswara Rao
FBAE
Bangalore
October 18, 2007

On October 7, 2007, Emmanuelle Landais, wrote in Gulf News, citing the India-based Greenpeace campaigner Rajesh Krishnan, that ‘India currently exports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seven types of produce known to be genetically engineered (GE), including basmati and non-basmati rice, tomatoes, aubergines (brinjal), maize, groundnut, potatoes and cabbage’. At the top of this article, the following quantities (in tonnes) of field trialled GM crop exports from India to the UAE during 2005-06, were prominently displayed: Basmati rice 62,100, non-Basmati rice 1,67,343, Maize 9,869, tomatoes 1,087, groundnut 669.5, potatoes 118, cabbage 10, and aubergines 5. The exactness of these export figures is impressive and convincing on the face of it, but for the fact that India is in no position to export any GE crops, even now, let alone during 2005-06.

The Gulf News reporter was apprehensive that ‘tonnes of Indian rice exported to the UAE might have been genetically engineered and could pose a threat to traders here who re-export the produce abroad without proper labels’.

In the context of two writ petitions seeking a ban on GE organisms/seeds in the country, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), on September 22, 2006, not to give approvals to genetically modified products until further orders. On May 8, 2007, by a partially modified order the SCI permitted field trials of those GE crops that were approved by the GEAC between May 2 and September 22, 2006, attaching certain conditions to the conduct of such field trials. In accordance with this order, the GEAC permitted large scale multi-location field trials of the following GE crops: several varieties of Bt cotton, Bt rice, Bt tomato, Bt brinjal, Bt okra, Bt cauliflower, Bt castor, fungal resistant rice, fungal resistant ground nut, drought resistant rice, drought resistant tomato, herbicide resitant cotton, and high protein potato.

Though some institutions are developing GE Basmati rice and maize, these are not yet permitted for even open field trials, but find place on the list of exported GE crops mentioned in the Gulf News report.

All these GE crops will have to undergo over three years of field trials before they are permitted for commercialization by the GEAC if their performance on biosecurity and agronomic parameters was satisfactory. It would be about a decade by the time India produces enough of any of these crops for the domestic market and surpluses to export. How then India could have exported to the UAE such large quantities of GE crops in 2005-06 as detailed in the Gulf News report? Developing and field testing GE crops does not mean that they are being exported.

UAE is a party to Convention on Biological Diversity, but not to the Cartagena Protocol, the international agreement to monitor transboundary movement of GE products. However, UAE has set up a Biosafety Clearing House, which can seek information from the exporting country on the GE component of the exported products. There is no federal level decision in the UAE to ban or label GE foods and India does not have any labeling rules in place. However, UAE can seek information from India on the nature of the exported products or even test the imports for GE content. If there already are imports of GE food products form the US, such as corn based products, similar foods from India should not be a serious concern. The Gulf News reporters should also check if any of Basmati rice exported from Pakistan has a GE component.

It should kept in mind that banning import of GE foods, merely on account of their being GE, will attract penal provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as has happened to the European Union countries last year.

In reality, the assertion of Greenpeace that Indian exports to the UAE are GE products has no basis. It is for the Government of India now to demand that Greenpeace substantiate the charge, or apologize for a fabrication that instills suspicion and fear on the minds of the people and the business community in the UAE and hurt India’s export business interests.

Check Biotech
By Fabienne Heimgartner
October 16, 2007

Almost everyone has heard of, or experienced, the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Now a laboratory at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia has described a plant- derived protein, which could soon be used as an anti- cancer vaccine, thus reducing the number of people who would need chemotherapy.

Scientists in the group around Dr. Hilary Koprowski at the Biotechnology Foundation Laboratories at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia produced a plant-derived, colorectal cancer antigen, which is a substance that the human body recognizes as foreign and thus triggers an immune response.

Dr. Koprowski’s team inserted the genetic information that can produce the antigen into tobacco plants. The plants in turn generated colorectal antigen (EpCAM) in large quantities just like an assembly line (”Plant-derived EpCAM antigen induces protective anti-cancer response” Cancer Imunollogy and Immunotherapy 2007).

To see if these plant-derived proteins could elicit an immune response, Dr. Koprowksi’s group then injected EpCAM into mice. All of them reacted with the production of EpCAM-specific antibodies, which could be detected in the serum.

To go one step further, the scientists grafted colorectal cancer cells into a mouse that does not contain an immune system, called a nude mouse. Since nude mice do not posses immune cells, the researchers subsequently injected them with immune cells capable of producing antibodies to EpCAM. The serum took over the job of the immune system, and indeed inhibited the growth of the cancer cells.

Until now, antibodies were mainly produced in mice or microbial systems, but the data obtained by Dr. Koprowski’s team show that plant-derived antibodies are as good as antibodies produced in animal cells.

From an economic perspective, the use of plant biotechnology has clear advantages when compared to mammalian technology such as, very high production levels and low investment. Plus, plants offer a more environmentally friendly production method because they can help reduce greenhouse emissions.

Taken together, Dr. Koprowski’s work indicates that plants could be an important and promising tool to produce antibodies for anti-cancer vaccination. If enough funding and support is acquired to run clinical trials on the vaccine, one day, it might be possible to receive a prescription for an anti-cancer vaccine.

Fabienne Heimgartner is a Science Journalist for ACCESS! and is currently gaining her first work experience as a biologist.
f_heimgartner@yahoo.de

Contact
Prof. Hilary Koprowski
Department of Cancer Biology
Jefferson Medical College
Thomas Jefferson University
233 South 10th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
United States
Phone: (215) 503-4761
Hillary.Koprowski@mail.tju.edu

Publication
Brodzik et al. Plant-derived EpCAM antigen induces protective anti-cancer response. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, published online July 19th 2007
http://www.springerlink.com/content/30j54p613218rk65/

Source: Check Biotech

Check Biotech
By Imelda V. Abano
October 16, 2007

Farmers should soon have access to a new strain of flood-resistant rice, say scientists. The development was discussed at the 3rd steering committee meeting of the Irrigated Rice Research Consortium of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Hanoi, Vietnam.

A large portion of Asian rice land is located in deltas and low-lying areas that are at risk from flooding during the monsoon season, and climate change intensifies these risks, said Reiner Wassmann, coordinator of the Rice and Climate Change Consortium of IRRI.

Crop scientists estimate that annual flooding leads to losses worth US$1 billion across south and South-East Asia.

Wassmann told SciDev.Net that a flood-resistant rice variety called Swarna Submergence 1 should reach farmers by 2009. The plant carries the sub1a gene that enables it to be submerged for up to 17 days.

Scientists led by David Mackill of IRRI and Pamela Ronald of the US-based University of California are working on the flood-resistant rice and are currently conducting field trials in several Asian countries.

According to IRRI, global rice prices have hit record highs while supply has plummeted to its lowest levels in a decade.

Around 60 international rice scientists from 13 countries gathered at the meeting to discuss improved rice varieties and innovative crop management techniques to help farmers address problems of growing rice in a changing climate, along with scarce water resources.

“We acknowledged the urgency of developing new varieties that can cope with flooding as well as higher temperatures because rice production may become unfavourable in some countries, especially vulnerable regions that are affected by sea level rise,” Wassmann said.

Also at the conference, IRRI and the Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences presented a study showing that low lift irrigation pumps — where water is pumped onto land difficult to serve by a gravity canal system — and drip irrigation can help to reduce water use between 15–20 per cent during the dry season, while boosting productivity by up to 15 per cent.

Source: Check Biotech

The American
By Patrick Moore
October 12, 2007

By embracing genetically modified ‘golden rice,’ says Greenpeace co-founder PATRICK MOORE, the world can help millions of people in developing countries.

It’s been seven years since a Swiss research team demonstrated that genetically enhanced “golden rice” could help prevent vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which is responsible for roughly half a million cases of childhood blindness in developing countries each year. Indeed, golden rice was created by a German scientist named Ingo Potrykus to solve just this problem. Unfortunately, a number of activist groups such as Greenpeace have mounted public campaigns against it, trafficking in scare tactics and misinformation. As World Food Day (October 16th) approaches, we must renew our commitment to making available a food product that could vastly improve people’s lives and prevent thousands of needless deaths.

Unlike other rice plants, golden rice produces beta-carotene in its seeds, through genetics that Potrykus and his team imported from corn. Beta-carotene is the precursor of vitamin A, which is crucial for vision and disease resistance. Yet Greenpeace insists that the unknown future consequences for human health and the environment make golden rice too risky. (Never mind the half million children who go blind every year as a result of VAD.)

I am often asked why I broke ranks with Greenpeace after co-founding the group in 1971 and then spending 15 years in its leadership as a full-time environmental activist. One of the main reasons was that by the mid-1980s the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of scare tactics and sensationalism.

At the same time, I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development, which takes environmental ideas and incorporates them into the traditional social and economic values that govern public policy and our daily behavior.

Every morning, six billion people wake up with real needs for food, energy, and materials. The challenge is to provide for these needs in ways that reduce our negative impact on the environment, are socially acceptable, and are technically and economically feasible. I came to believe that seeking consensus among environmentalists, the government, industry, and academia was essential for sustainability.

But not all my former colleagues saw things that way. Many environmentalists rejected consensus politics and sustainable development in favor of continued confrontation, ever-increasing extremism, and left-wing politics.

Read the rest of this entry »