Plant Biotech Blog

I just found this article in the Thaindian News. American biotech expert Bruce Chassy looks at ways in which genetic engineering could address a potential food crisis in a few years. He also responds to criticism that GM food is “unsafe” and “unhealthy.”

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

Genetic engineering can help solve food crisis: US expert
Thaindian News
July 30, 2008

Kolkata, July 30 (IANS) Over 850 million people across the world will not be able to get a square meal by 2025 due to food shortage, but it can be tackled, at least partially, through genetic engineering, says American agricultural expert Bruce M. Chassy. The assistant dean (office of research) of the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at Illinois said: “By 2025, there will be a shortage of 400 billion tonnes of cereal grains that make up our staple diet.”

Speaking to IANS here, Chassy said: “Biotechnology, more precisely genetic engineering, can be a part of the solution, if not a complete answer, to this problem.

“Simultaneously we can produce biofuels to produce energy sustainably. But the drawback is that it can drive food prices” upwards.

Chassy does not think using genetically engineered seeds is at all complex for farmers. “Genetic farming is the easiest way to cultivate crops. All that farmers have to do is to plant the seeds and water them regularly. The genetically modified seeds are insect resistant, so there is no need to use huge amounts of pesticides.”

But is the method suited for developing countries like India since the genetically modified seeds are more expensive than ordinary ones?

Read more…

According to a recent report, Vietnam plans to increase production of genetically modified soybeans, corn and cotton on a “massive” scale in order to make up for a record-breaking inflation rates. The Southeast Asian nation hopes this move will help to decrease imports.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

Vietnam to Allow Genetically Modified Crops to Reduce Imports
Vietnam Business Finance
July 28, 2008

Viet Nam is aiming for “massive production” of genetically modified crops to reduce imports of soybeans, corn and cotton.

Development of genetically modified crops may reduce the Southeast Asian nation’s dependence on imports, helping to narrow the trade deficit and calm concerns about the stability of the economy. Increases in food prices have spurred inflation of 27%, the fastest since at least 1992.

“Viet Nam plans to allow massive production of genetically modified crops after 2010,” said Pham Van Toan, Hanoi-based head of the general office at the agriculture ministry’s science and technology department. The country in 2005 approved the program to cut agricultural imports, he said.

The authorities have completed a draft of a law that will allow such crops, the agricultural attache’s office at the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi said in a report this month. A National Assembly session convening in October is expected to approve the law, the Viet Nam News Agency reported on July 1.

“Viet Nam remains keen to produce genetically modified crops, particularly soybeans, corn and cotton, in order to reduce the dependence on imports of these key commodities,” Bui Thi Huong, an agricultural specialist at the U.S. Embassy, said in the report.

Read more…

India’s annual production of papaya is about 2.5 billion kilograms from about a dozen States.  Papaya yields in India are severely restricted by the papaya ring spot virus (PRSV) disease, which also frustrates the country’s target of increasing papaya production by 750 million kilograms.

A genetically engineered (GE) variety of papaya resistant to PRSV was developed by Monsanto, which has been in successful cultivation in Hawaii since its introduction in 1990s.  Monsanto has recently donated to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, India, the technology for developing a GE papaya resistant to the PRSV.  Now scientists at the Centre for Plant Molecular Biology at TNAU are developing a GE papaya variety specifically to resist PRSV under Indian conditions.  The transfer of this technology was facilitated the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a U.S.-based nonprofit organization that helps transfer biotechnologies to developing countries.  The Government of India has approved the technology transfer.  The new variety is expected to be release in about five years to benefit the Indian papaya farmer.

The full article on this issue, published in SPAN, is available at <http://span.state.gov/wwwhspjulyaug088.html>.

The SPAN magazine is a bimonthly publication of the US Embassy for South Asia.

Dr C Kameswara Rao

A friend passed along the following article on the future of biotechnology. The author interviews well known biotechnology expert Clive James about what the industry has accomplished. James also discusses several projects that are in the works.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

Science Supersizes Crops
Red Orbit
July 21, 2008

A new “supercorn” with eight genetic modifications that make it even more highly resistant to insects and weed killers than earlier versions is just one of the agricultural developments Americans will see over the next several years as scientific advances enable technicians to customize crop plants with stacks of genes, biotechnology expert Clive James said.

Mr. James stressed the need for genetically modified crops to help farmers grow more food on fewer acres as the world is running out of land and water while the population is expected to climb to 9 billion by 2015.

“In the next 50 years, the global population will consume twice as much food as the global population has consumed since the beginning of agriculture 10,000 years ago,” Mr. James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, told reporters and editors Wednesday at The Washington Times. “You have a choice: You can think of it as a problem, or we think of it as an opportunity.”

Twelve million farmers in 23 countries are now using crops that have been enhanced with additional genes to achieve benefits such as resistance to pests and viruses, according to 2007 data from ISAAA, a nonprofit focused on spreading biotechnology to alleviate hunger and poverty in developing countries. Meanwhile, biotech crop area grew last year by 12 percent to about 285 million acres.

The U.S. is the world’s largest user of biotech crops, with about 80 percent of processed food including genetically modified soybeans or corn, Mr. James said. Ten other industrialized nations and 12 developing countries use the technology, which was commercialized in 1996.

Read more…

Bloomberg reported China plans to boost production of genetically modified crops in order to meet demand or more food in the country. Sun Zhengcai, China’s Minister of Agriculture, said in a statement that the country will accelerate introduction of high-yield rice and genetically modified crops, protect farmland and raise rural incomes to retain farming interest.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

China Must Boost Crop Output to Meet Food Demand, Minister Says
Bloomberg
July 19, 2008

July 19 (Bloomberg) — China, the world’s biggest grower and consumer of grains, must boost crop yields by at least 1 percent a year to ensure the country has enough food to feed its 1.3 billion people, the Minister of Agriculture said.

The country will accelerate introduction of high-yield rice and genetically modified crops, protect farmland and raise rural incomes to retain farming interest, Sun Zhengcai said in a statement on the central government’s Web site yesterday.

China’s growing incomes and population are increasing food demand even as more agricultural workers seek higher-paying jobs in cities. The nation must maintain self-sufficiency in food production because no other country can feed the world’s biggest population, Sun said.

“Our strategy must be based on stable farmland, and seeking ways to improve yields,” Sun said in a speech to local officials, outlining the government’s near- and long-term agriculture policy and objectives.

China, which harvested more summer crops, aims also to boost grain and oilseed output this year, Sun said. To ensure next year’s crops, officials must “stabilize” area planted in winter wheat and use idle land in the off season to grow rapeseed, Sun said.

The government has put priority on “initiating the application of genetically modified crop projects,” Sun said, without elaborating.

Raed more…

A colleague of mine just passed along the following article on the development of a herbicide-resistant soybean variety developed by DuPont. The soybean is supposedly resistant to several different types of herbicides, including Monsanto’s Roundup and the ALS class of herbicides. DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred unit hopes to launch demonstration plots next year and says it want to release the crop commercially by 2011.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

DuPont gains approval for modified soybeans
Delaware Online
July 18, 2008

DuPont Co. has received U.S. regulatory approval for soybeans that resist weed killers, an important step toward launching the company’s first proprietary genetically modified crops.

DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred business unit plans to launch demonstration plots next year of soybeans with Optimum GAT, a genetically engineered trait that helps crops resist several types of herbicides.

The technology is a crucial part of DuPont’s strategy for capturing a greater share of the North American market for corn and soybean seeds, as well as ending hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments to its top competitor in agriculture.

Genetically engineered seeds incorporate genes from other organisms to impart a certain trait, like herbicide or insect resistance, to crops.

DuPont licenses a yield-enhancing trait and a herbicide-resistance trait called Roundup Ready from St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. In the next eight years, the company expects to pay about $725 million to Monsanto for Roundup Ready corn alone, according to a financial filing. Neither DuPont nor Monsanto would disclose royalty payments for the other traits.

Read more…

Fellow blogger Brian Thompson of the Amateur Scientist blog posted an entry on China’s announcement that it will boost its production of GM rice corn and soybeans. Thompson writes that China is boosting production to meet the demands of the ever growing population. He also criticizes those who are against genetically modified crops because they are afraid of the effects of GM food.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

GM Crops Save China
Amateur Scientist
July 16, 2008

You may have already heard, but China is full of people. 1.3 billion of them, to be exact. To put that in perspective, imagine one person, and then multiply that by 1.3 billion. Consequently, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the Chinese government to feed all these people, who, like most people, require food. Enter genetically modified crops. This is exactly why GM crops are so useful, as they can produce more food with less space. Unfortunately many people, including the European Union, have a flimsy grasp of the science behind GM crops. They believe that somehow eating corn engineered to be bigger and juicier will make them grow bat wings. Or something. China has launched a plan to boost its production of GM rice, corn, and soybeans and to continue its production of GM cotton and vegetables. Anti-GM nutjobs should consider that this is the same government that, instead of building a ceiling on its Olympic stadium, decided to simply control the weather. Some things are simple enough even for the batshit crazy to understand. More details here.

Read more…

A new pest-resistant variety of potato has been developed in South Africa. The crop is currently awaiting governmental approval, but once approved farmer participatory trials are slated to start. During the trials, steps will be taken to prepare for it’s commercial release.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

South Africa develops new GM potato variety
Tootooeub51 blog
July 15, 2008

South Africa’s Agricultural Research Council (ARC) has developed anew potato variety resistant to the potato tuber moth, a majorpests causing millions worth of harvest loss in major solanaceouscrops.

The transgenic potato SpuntaG2, developed through the support ofthe United States Agency for International development (USAID), nowawaits safety assessment and general release approval from thenational authorities.

The approval will enable the ARC to initiate farmer participatorytrials under unconfined conditions and develop a certification andlabeling system to prepare for commercial release of improvedpotato varieties.

SpuntaG2 is the first publicly-funded genetically modified crop toenter the safety approval process in South Africa.

The new variety performed well in field trials.

Environmental studies further showed that the GM crop controls thepotato tuber moth without affecting other organisms.

Read more…

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), in force since September 2003, is a legally binding global protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The CPB, stated in 40 Articles and three Annexes, is the first international agreement to regulate the trade and transboundary movement of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology.  So far 147 countries are parties to the CPB. Significantly, among the countries that are commercializing
and exporting GE crops, Argentina and Canada have signed the CPB, but have not yet ratified it, while Australia and the US have not even signed.

Objectives of the CPB

The main objective of the CPB is to ensure an adequate level of protection in the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs that may have adverse effects on the conservation, sustainable use of biological diversity and the environment, to protect human health.

The CPB is not concerned with the intra-country issues related to LMOs.  CPB does not cover a) the products derived from LMOs (such as paper from GE trees or seed meal, oil or sauce from GE soybean or ginned GE cotton) which cannot be used to introduce LMOs into environment, and b) the LMOs, which are pharmaceuticals that are addressed by other relevant international organizations or agreements.

The Role of CPB

The CPB assists developing countries in building their capacity for managing modern biotechnology, by creating an ‘Advanced Informed Agreement’ (AIA) procedure that requires exporters to seek consent from
importing countries before the first shipment of LMOs meant to be introduced into the environment, such as seeds for planting, fish for release and microorganisms for bioremediation.   CPB established an internet-based ‘Biosafety Clearing House’ (BCH) to help countries exchange scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on LMOs, and requires bulk shipments of LMO commodities, such as corn or soybean intended to be used as food, feed or for processing, to be accompanied by documentation stating that such shipments ‘may contain’ LMOs and are ‘not intended for intentional introduction into the environment’.

The CPB ensures that the protocol does not alter the rights and obligations of governments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) or other international agreements.

The CPB a) does not address food safety issues, which are the concern of other international fora, b) does not require segregation of bulk shipments of commodities that may contain LMOs, c) does not require consumer product labeling, and d) does not subject bulk shipments of commodities to the CPB’s AIA procedure.

Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA)

AIA is CPB’s main mechanism which must be followed before the first intentional transboundary movement of an LMO into the importing country. The exporter must provide to the importing country the notification containing detailed information about the LMO, its previous ‘Risk Assessment’ and its regulatory status in the exporting country. The importing country must acknowledge receiving the information within 90 days and whether the notifier should proceed under a domestic regulatory system or under the CPB procedure.
In either case, the importing country must decide whether to allow the import, with or without conditions or deny it, within 270 days.

The AIA only applies to the first time shipments and not the subsequent shipments.  LMOs not intended for release into the environment such as commodities, LMOs in transit, and LMOs destined for contained use, also do not come under the purview of the AIA.

Biosafety Clearing House (BCH)

The BCH is a website administered by the CBD Secretariat, established a) to facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on, and experience with LMOs, and b) to
assist Parties to implement the CPB.  Examples of information contained in the BCH include, a) any existing laws, regulations, or guidelines for implementation of the Protocol, b) summaries of risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs, and c) final decisions regarding the importation or release of LMOs.

Risk Assessment

The CPB requires that decisions on proposed imports be based on risk assessments.   Risk assessments must be undertaken in a scientific manner based on recognized risk assessment techniques, relying upon the advice and guidelines developed by relevant international organizations. Lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus must not necessarily be interpreted as indicating a) a particular level of risk, b) an absence of risk, or c) an acceptable risk. Risks associated with LMOs or products thereof should be considered in the context of potential risks posed by the non-modified recipients or parental organisms in the receiving environment. Risk assessment should be carried out on a case-by-case basis.  Nations must also take measures to prevent illegal shipments or accidental releases of LMOs.

Capacity Building

The CPB promotes international co-operation to help developing countries acquire resources and capacity to use biotechnology safely and regulate it efficiently. This is achieved by encouraging member governments to assist with scientific and technical training to promote the transfer of technology and knowledge, and financial resources. Governments are also expected to facilitate greater involvement of the private sector.

Public Awareness

Member governments must commit themselves to promoting public awareness and consultation, ensuring public access to information.

How effective is CPB?

While the CPB has not visibly achieved its intended objectives, a number of concerns have surfaced, putting in doubt the very purpose of CPB as an international instrument:

1. Till the CPB came into being, only national bodies regulated biosafety issues.   The stringency of the regulatory processes ranges from the very strict (US and India) to the very lax (some African countries and China).  The CPB does not necessarily insist on the level of stringency of regulatory processes nor does it seek to ensure the much desired uniform global norms.
2. 2. The so-called Miami Group (US and a coalition of GE-exporting countries such as Argentina, Australia and Canada) are not Parties to CPB but managed to exclude processed foods and biopharmaceuticals from its ambit.  As these countries are in a big way in to commercializing GE crops, their keeping themselves out of the CPB is a matter of concern.
3. Countries that are not parties to the CPB may go to WTO for dispute settlement if GE exports are not accepted, as the US has already done so against the European Union and won the case.
4. CPB is not concerned with labeling GEOs and so mandatory labeling requirements for GE commodities will remain a contentious issue.
5. The CPB could be used as a safe way out by countries which do not wish to import GE products.
6. There has hardly been any agreement at the periodical meetings of the Conference of the Parties and Meeting of the Parties (CoP/MoP).  A number of contentious issues discussed at the fourth round of the CoP/MoP held in Bonn in May 2008 did not result in any significant decisions.

The most debated issue at these meetings was the ‘Liability and Redress for Damage’ that may occur on account of LMOs.  A group of 80 countries such as Malaysia, Philippines, Columbia, several African countries and India, called the ‘Like Minded Group’, pressed for a legally binding instrument based on an administrative approach with an enabling clause on civil liability, which was opposed by countries such as Japan, Brazil and Peru.  Six major GE companies such as Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF proposed a voluntary scheme called the ‘Compact’ as an alternative.  This unresolved issue is rescheduled to be discussed again at the CoP/MoP 5 to be held in Japan in October 2010, along with a number of other issues on which too there was no agreement.

C Kameswara Rao

Gene Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) are a group of tools to regulate gene expression, in different ways. The concept is not new and there have been many conventional means to alter gene expression such as addition or deletion of genes, induced gene mutations, induced polyploidy, experimental hybridization and somatic hybridization. However, these are difficult to manipulate with precision. Modern GURTs protocols, such as the patented ‘Control of Plant Gene Expression’ (CPGE, US Patent No. 5,723,765, March 1998), RNA interference (RNAi ) and the now well known rDNA technology, are moreprecise.

The CPGE (aka ‘Terminator Technology’) allows the crop to grow normally and set seed, but the seed would not germinate as the development of the embryo was arrested. The anti-tech activists have conducted such massive fear-generating campaigns against CPGE that made Governments of many countries prohibit the use of CPGE in agriculture. Even the Patent holders had agreed not to use CPGE in any crop. CPGE was not targeted at the farmer to prevent him from using the previous seasons’ seed, but this was the thrust
of the anti-tech argument.

In another approach of CPGE, derogatively dubbed as the ‘traitor technology’, the expression of a specific desirable transgenic trait is dependent upon spraying a specific proprietary chemical, sold separately, often by the same company.

RNA interference (RNAi , gene silencing), which was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2006, has gained scientific acceptance and is being deployed in several innovative products, particularly in medicine. A variety of coffee without caffeine was developed by gene silencing, as also a ‘tearless onion’ demonstrated in February 2008.

The technology for ‘reversible transgenic sterility’ (RTS), patented a couple of years ago, allows the farmer or breeder to restore the seed’s fertility by applying an external chemical inducer.

Implications for GURTs

CPGE gained all its notoriety as unfortunately it was first demonstrated in the context of arrest of the development of the embryo making the seed unusable to raise a crop from it.

Opponents to GURTs argue that the ‘terminator and traitor seeds’ could make farmers dependent on multinational companies (MNCs).  Profitable and sustainable agriculture depends upon quality seed of even the non-GE crops, an area already dominated by the MNCs, because of large scale failure of the public sector in different parts of the world, more particularly the developing countries.

The CPGE technology essentially requires to be triggered by a chemical compound, such as
a tetracycline antibiotic, to arrest embryo development, which any one should know as expensive and irrelevant to commercial agriculture.

CPGE can be used safely to prevent gene flow where the commercial product is not the embryo
but the endosperm as in rice, wheat and corn. It can also be used where the crop is vegetatively propagated such as potato or grape vine. CPGE would not be used when the seed formed wholly of the embryo is the commercial product, such as chickpea, groundnut, soybean, etc.  However, it is useful in producing almost seedless fruits of cucumber, melon and pumpkin or aubergines, though the seed is wholly formed of the embryo, as the seed is not the commercial product.

GURTs containing crops are not designed for the marginal andpoor farmers in the developing countries who use their own or a local seed. GURTs are meant for farmers who are technologically savvy and can afford to buy hybrid GURTs-incorporated transgenic seed each season, to prevent gene flow from GE crops. For decades, farmers who have been using branded designer seed, GE or not, are fully aware that they cannot recycle the seed as the benefits of the technology rapidly dwindle with each generation.

On the other hand, the seed companies know that it is not ethical and/or economical to jeopardize
the interests of the small farmer who may recycle the seed season after seasonand the revenue loss to the companies from such ill advised use of seed is inconsequential.

Derivable Benefits from GURTs in Crops

Despite the very vehement opposition based on reasons other than sound science, GURTs can be used to benefit. The more important advantages are:

1. Prevent gene flow from transgenics through pollen by producing sterile pollen or through seed by arresting embryo development.
2. Help in containing GE pharma crops that synthesize therapeutically active compounds.
3. Protect Organic Farming, since sterile pollen cannot cause cross pollination that may affect Organic Certification, though currently this is not an issue.
4. Induced male sterility is an accepted tool in plant breeding to produce hybrids in otherwise difficult crops such as sorghum and mustards, and GURTs make this much easier than conventional methods.
5. CPGE could be a boon, if the trigger, instead of a tetracycline antibiotic, is a product of a seed pathogen such as that causes grain smut or a product of the host, produced in response to the pathogen’s entry into the developing grain. Arresting embryo development in such seeds would control the transmission of the seed borne pathogen to the next generation.
6. Protect the genetic design of GE crops.
7. Prevent the unauthorized or illegal cultivation of transgenic crops.
8. Since GURTs would block gene flow from transgenic crops, their incorporation into transgenics
   is actually in keeping with the aims of the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity (Article 2) and GURTs do not threaten biodiversity as alleged by activists.

GURTs and Convention on Biological Diversity

The UN body, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has slapped a de facto moratorium over six years ago on the use of GURTs in crops. In 2006, Australia, Canada and New Zealand backed a proposal to end the moratorium on CPGE at the meetings of 8^th Conference of the Parties (CoP ) of CBD which rejected the proposal . At the same meetings, another proposal for field trials and a case-by-case assessment of
GURTs, concerning the potential impact on the environment, human health, and traditional agriculture and knowledge, also was rejected by a working group of the CBD .

The issue of GURTs was on the agenda of the 9^th CoP of the CBD held from 20^th to 30^th May 2008, discussed under a) ‘Impact of GURTs on Farmers Seed Systems’, and b) ‘A New Generation of GURTs: the
Potential Impacts on Biodiversity and Food Sovereignty’. The notes accompanying these agenda items did
not look positive in approach and as predictably the moratorium is not going to be lifted soon.

The major objective behind GURTs is biocontainment of transgenes in crops and trees, to the advantage of the farmer, the consumer, biodiversity and the environment.