FBAE Blog

Dawn
April 21, 2007

Excerpt…

GM crops are environment-friendly and help the farmers manage their cotton crops in a very effective way because there is an in-built pest and weed control mechanism, explains Ijaz Ahmad Rao.

Biotechnology has received far greater acceptance in the discipline of medicine, energy and industrial sector as compared to the field of food and agriculture: the main reason behind it, is a lack of awareness in common man.

That is why modern biotech industry is keep changing and redefining itself during the last two decades. The use of genetic engineering in agriculture is a complex issue that presents both potential benefits and risks to human society and the environment, with implications at the local and global levels. Today a heated global debate has erupted over the use of modern crop biotechnology; Government, journalists, communities and farmers in developing countries are deliberating about the same challenge as those in other countries.

Many are optimistic that plant’s biotechnology has come to stay, and will be a major technology of the future – and its potential benefits include improved crops that would be more nutritious, higher yielding, need less pesticides, resistant to weeds, and more environmentally sustainable while anti campaigners believes that such a technology may cause toxicity and allergenicity to human; that it can create super weeds while number of sprays to control pests on crops will increase extensively; In short, crops biotechnology is harmful to our health, environment and economics rather safe and beneficial. This is the point where most of the journalists and a common man get confused and find hard to balance between the information coming from two different schools of thoughts.

Moreover, the discussion on the debate has large influence by social, ethical, religious, scientific, political, economic, legal and cultural dimensions so it has become more complex for journalists to position itself on the scale - as a result of it scientists and journalists differed in their opinions about the quality of media coverage of agriculture biotechnology and bio-safety, socioeconomic and ethical issues; however the main sufferer in this war are the farmers, technology developer and public who has been dragged on a bewildered and puzzled road; but many stakeholders still recognise and place great importance on the role of the media in shaping public perception of Biotech science and technology.

In March a three days media workshop on “innovative aspects of Biotechnology and its better awareness and dissemination” was jointly organised by Comstech, ISESCO based in Tehran, Pakistan Biotechnology Information Centre (PABIC) as well as ISAAA.

The main objective was to ensure that members of the media, especially those who have opportunities to write about agriculture biotechnology are well informed about advancements in modern biotechnology.

Pakistan has several good institutions currently working on various aspects of biotechnology. There are a number of universities; which offer various degrees in this discipline. However, there is a serious lack of appreciation of biotechnology at the public and industrial levels. Coordination and exchange of information among institution and practitioners of biotechnology is less then adequate.

Therefore, there is a need of a resource centre in Pakistan; which can serve as a hub to disseminate information, to support the collaborative efforts and to develop a network of institutions and individuals working in this field; that’s why The Pakistan Biotechnology Information Centre (www.pabic.com.pk) has been established at Latif Ebrahim Jamal National Science Information Centre, University of Karachi under the patronage of International Service for Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) and National Commission on Biotechnology.

The initiative of the establishment of Pakistan Biotechnology Information Centre is an attempt to initiate multidisciplinary research and enhance the awareness and appreciation of biotechnology at the local and international levels.

The modern plant biotechnology, contrasting the traditional technologies, converts and improves the performance and endows it with various new capabilities of crop through a technology named as genetic engineering. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that produces proteins active against certain insects

Modern biotechnology is exemplified by the much maligned genetically engineered Bt genes in crops like cotton, maize, soybean, canola etc; single or double gene transferred into the plants innate ability of a soil microbe to fight the destructive diseases and pests like, bollworms, corn borer — saves farmers the cost of buying and applying a chemical pesticide and can increase nutrition and production.

According to our recent Economic Survey 2005-06 measuring from a high base of last year, the performance of agriculture has been weak — due to a relatively poor performance of two of the four major crops, namely cotton and sugarcane. One would like to list down some of the predicaments our crops are faced with, which is really a perturbing situation;

Pakistan’s yield per acre ranks below the average in the world, high price of agriculture inputs like seeds, fertilisers, pesticides etc, higher intensity of insects and pests attack, shortage of good quality and varieties of seeds, insufficient availability of water for irrigation.

Additionally, the absence of a proper crop insurance system or any support system in the shape of subsidies by the government is resulting in frustration and lack of motivation in growers to spend resource in their fields in order to improve crop yields. At present, a major part of arable land is cultivated by small farmers, with 86 per cent of total number of farms comprising less than 12.5 acres. The number of small farms is continuously increasing because of land division due to inheritance.

According to the study conducted by the Planning Commission — Pakistan will have to increase its national average agricultural yield to ensure food security for its growing population, which has increased to 156 million in 2006 from 34 million in 1947.

The world’s average yield of wheat is around 1100 kg per acre, while in Pakistan it is about 915 kg per acre; similarly, national average rice yield is 1165 kg per acre against world’s average of 1585 kg per acre. In China and India, it is around 2535 kg and 1180 kg per acre, respectively. It is worth to remember that our potential for wheat yield ought to be over 38 million tons at an average yield of 1.85 tonnes per acre; we are annually losing about three billion US dollar due to wheat production inefficiencies.

Similarly, the average yield of maize in Pakistan is around 715 kg per acre against world’s average of 730 kg per acres; however, maize average yield is 690 kg per acre in India and 2032 kg per acre in China. Similarly, average cotton yield is around 755 kg per acre in Pakistan against world’s 725 kg per acre. Local demand from cotton and textile industry is increasing each year in Pakistan; so cotton lint output has been projected to increase to 21.5 million bales in 2015 from 12.4 million bales in 2006-07.

IN 2006, 22 countries grew biotech crops, 11 developing countries and 11 industrial countries, like the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, China, Paraguay, South Africa, Uruguay, the Philippines, Australia, Romania, Mexico, Spain, Colombia, France, Iran, Honduras, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany, and Slovakia. The global biotech crop area continued to soar as the 250 millionth acre barrier was breached, as the first time more than 10 million farmers in 22 countries. This unprecedented high adoption rate is testimony to the trust and confidence of millions of small and large farmers in crop biotechnology in both industrial and developing countries. Source: (ISAAA)

In fact, before the arrival of modern crop biotechnology, farmers around the globe had only an option of chemical pesticides as weapon to combat the major pests and to manage weeds in the field, but with the passage of time this methodology has became ineffective as many pests and weeds showed resistance against most pesticides that were available in the market. With the introduction of GM crops, farmers have been able to manage their cotton crops in a very effective way because there is an in-built pest and weeds control mechanism created in the plant to control pests and weeds on time.

Moreover, it is almost impossible and worthless to spray during rainy and windy period even if farmers know that their crops are under pests attack; however, GM is the only solution to protect crops in such circumstances due to its presence with in the plant life cycle.

It is worth knowing that in Pakistan, an estimated worth US$ 300 million of pesticides are being used in agriculture, of which more than 80 per cent is used on cotton especially to control Bollworm known as “Sunides”; use of pesticide has reached over 47,550 metric tonnes annually; due to indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals, the health of the people living in rural areas and environment have been affected badly at the same time the water quality of these region has found contaminated which is harmful for human and water echo system. Although Bt cotton also provides significant control of targeted bollworms but supplemental foliar insecticide sprays are occasionally required to keep other bollworms and sucking pests from causing excessive damage in Bt fields.

According to World Health Organisation; “Vitamin A deficiency affects 140 million children worldwide and causes 500,000 vitamin-A-deficient children to become blind every year, half of them die within 12 months by losing their sight”. With its promise to combat vitamin A deficiency, Golden Rice was quickly identified and adopted – it is genetically modified rice which contains three genes that produce high levels of beta carotene (Beta carotene is contained in yellow fruits like carrots and mangoes and in vegetables like spinach).

Beta-carotene is converted in the human body to the crucially needed vitamin A. Recently, Monsanto has granted patent licenses at no charge to the developers of golden rice. Other crops, with other traits, are in various phases of discovery, engineering, testing and commercialisation — salt-resistant wheat, rice, sugarcane if successful, this would open up a vast amount of land currently unsuitable for its production. Similarly, fruits may not seem as important as foods like; corn, soy, wheat and rice in many countries but they are powerful economic engines for a large number of people around the world as in Bangladesh after rice, papaya fruit crop plays a very important role in their daily diet; papaya ring-spot virus (PRSV) was threatening to devastate the Hawaiian papaya in 1990’s; a PRSV-resistant cultivar was developed in GM papaya and now successfully it has been grown there commercially since 1998.

Pakistan has large number of dedicated and highly qualified biotechnologist, genetics, virologists and plant breeding at well-known institutes like; National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE) and Nuclear Institute of Agriculture and Biology (NIAB) in Faisalabad, and National Centre of Excellence in Molecular Biology (NCEMB) at Punjab University Lahore, Centre of Agriculture, Biochemistry and Biotechnology (CABB), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and Central Cotton Research Institute (CCRI), Multan which have capacity to develop new crop breed and isolate and transform desire gene; significant amount of financial resources have been committed by the Government of Pakistan for developing genetically modified local cotton varieties….

Read the full article at Dawn.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:21 PM | Permalink

The Council for Biotechnology Information

Excerpt…

Benefits include removal of toxins and other unwanted materials

Most people think of plant biotechnology as it relates to agriculture. Your first thoughts may be of farmers benefiting from increased yields of corn, soybean or cotton. The first environmental benefits that come to mind may include reduced pesticide applications, less soil tillage and reductions in associated fossil-fuel use. But in addition to reducing the environmental footprint of agricultural crops, scientists are working to bolster other plants' natural abilities to rid the environment of unwanted materials.

Phytoremediation: How Plants Help Clean the Soil

Phytoremediation uses plants to remove, transfer, stabilize and destroy environmental contaminants. As plants take in water and other nutrients through their roots, they remove harmful chemicals from the soil. Trees are particularly adept at phytoremediation because their roots grow much more deeply into the soil than other plants.¹

Once toxins are absorbed by a tree, they are either internalized or broken down into less harmful substances. The internalized chemicals may settle above ground within the trunk, branches or leaves, or remain below ground in the roots. The tree can transform contaminants into less toxic substances before storing or releasing them, or microscopic bugs that associate with the tree's roots may transform the toxins into less harmful substances.
Several steps can prevent phytoremediating trees from reintroducing internalized toxins back into the ground or water. Collecting and incinerating discarded leaves guards against soil recontamination. Energy producers may burn harvested trees, and, depending on the nature of the accumulated toxins, pulp or paper manufacturers may use the trees.

The targeted toxins can harm many phytoremediating trees, especially those selected or engineered to be "hyperaccumulators." To combat this problem, researchers are looking for ways to bolster plant resistance to poisons while enhancing uptake and processing capabilities.²

Danbury, Conn., suffered mercury contamination during its heyday as the world's hat-making capital. Today, to clean up the pollution, scientists are splicing genes from the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli) into cottonwood trees. The genes enable the common bacterium — and the trees — to live amid mercury. In a field test, scientists planted 45 biotech cottonwood trees in a polluted lot. The researchers hope the trees treat the mercury as a nutrient and draw the toxic element from the soil with their roots. The trees will store most of the mercury, some of which will vaporize into the air. The scientists plan to cut down and incinerate the trees after several years of growth.³

Researchers also are looking for ways to make poplars more effective phytoremediators of heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium and mercury. Fast growth rates and large biomass make poplars especially well-suited for phytoremediation. Yet the trees have limited tolerance of heavy metals and therefore can remediate only a given amount. Scientists hope that genetic modification can significantly increase poplars' remediative capacity.⁴

In a recent article published in EMBO Reports, researchers Andreas D. Peuke and Heinz Rennenberg describe their work of inserting a bacterial gene into poplars. The gene increased the poplars' level of glutathione, an antioxidant that can reduce environmental stress on trees. With the gene, the biotech trees absorbed larger amounts of potentially dangerous heavy metals compared with their nonbiotech counterparts. These new biotech poplars "are indeed all-purpose performers for phytoremediation in controlled greenhouse conditions: They showed a high potential for the uptake and detoxification of…heavy metals," the researchers said.⁵

Mustards Absorb Pollutants, Detect Threats

Trees aren't the only plants scientists are hoping to use for phytoremediation. A significant amount of research is under way on various relatives of wild mustard. For example, researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of California, Berkeley, recently showed that a new biotech variety of Indian mustard converted a toxic form of selenium into a nontoxic one. The scientists engineered one line of Indian mustard plants to produce more of the enzyme adenosine triphosphate sulfurylase (APS). The enzyme is key to the plant's ability to convert selenate into a nontoxic form of selenium, allowing the plant to accumulate more than four times the amount of contaminant found in nonbiotech plants, without incurring harm. Lead researcher Norman Terry hopes to learn if it's possible "to increase [the plant's] ability to absorb selenium and other pollutants ten-, one hundred- or even one thousand-fold."⁶

Scientists recently adapted another mustard, the thale cress Arabidopsis (considered by many to be the mouse of genetic plant research), to detect land mines when sown in potentially mine-laden fields. The Danish company Aresa Biodetection ApS tweaked the plant's genetic makeup so it would turn from red to green within three to six weeks in the presence of nitrogen dioxide, a gas that leaches from mines and other ordinances.

"This is a pioneering example of how we will see genetically engineered plants applied for humanitarian and environmental purposes in the future," said Professor John Mundy, Department of Plant Physiology at the University of Copenhagen….⁷

Read the full article at The Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:56 PM | Permalink

Bernama.com
April 18, 2007

Excerpt…

KUALA LUMPUR, April 18 (Bernama) -- Genetically modified crops could be the answer to the world's food shortage in future, especially with the rapid growth of human population, Nobel laureate Professor Werner Arber said Wednesday.

He said genetically engineered crops would not only be able to meet increasing food consumption and help reduce hunger in the world, but could also provide the nutrients much needed by both humans and animals.

"The general public should not treat genetic engineering as a threat that could modify the DNA of living organisms, but should see it as an evolution process that takes place naturally in the environment," he told reporters after delivering a talk on "The Impact of Science and Technology on Civilisation" at Universiti Malaya, here Wednesday.

"It's a natural evolution of living organisms in our environment. It happens even without our permission and our consciousness," said the 1978 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine/Physiology for the discovery of restriction enzymes and their application to problems of molecular genetics.

Arber, 78, pointed out that the magnitude of genetic engineering under natural conditions and in the laboratories were of the same level.

The Swiss said that with the planet's growing population and with more land converted for non-agriculture purposes, there could not be enough food for everyone in years to come.

"Genetically engineered crops can improve nutritional value of food which human beings and animals depend on, such as vitamins and the essential amino acid which is not much available naturally.

"So genetic engineering can produce plants which have increased proportions of nutrients essential for the human diet," said Arber who is here on a two-day visit.

Arber who was here for the first time in 2002, said in tackling rising concerns over genetic engineering being abused, the civil society at large needed to play a bigger role in the matter.

"Scientists come up with new findings and assessment of the benefits and risks of these findings. But the people and policy makers should decide how they should control the impact of genetically modified organisms on their lives," he said.

Read the full article at Bernama.com.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:46 PM | Permalink

SeedQuest
Brussels, Belgium
April 20, 2007

Here’s a great article excerpt from SeedQuest about agricultural biotechnology…

Excerpt…

The Joint Research Centre (JRC’s) study “Consequences, Opportunities and Challenges of Modern Biotechnology for Europe", better known as the Biotech for Europe (Bio4EU) study, due to be officially released today, is the largest study ever of its kind in Europe. The Bio4EU study will be published at an EU symposium where the main findings will be presented and discussed as well as the Mid-term review of the EU Strategy on Life Sciences and Biotechnology. EuropaBio – the EU Association for Bioindustries - welcomes the results of the socio-economic impact study of biotechnology which show the pervasiveness of biotechnology across all major economic sectors in Europe. The study’s figures are compelling: they confirm that life sciences and biotechnology have grown to be central to several industrial sectors of the EU economy. They also confirm the dramatic contribution of biotechnology to progress in medicine for the benefit of patients despite the continuous rationing of healthcare practiced by Member States.

Some key facts and figures:

• Modern biotechnology and its applications generate almost 2% of EU gross value added, indicating that its importance is comparable to Europe’s largest industry sectors.

• The European dedicated biotechnology industry directly employs 96.500 people, mostly in SMEs; however given biotechnology’s “enabling effect”, employment in industries using biotechnology products is many times higher.

• The number of biopharmaceuticals on the market has more than doubled in the last 10 years and

• The number of biopharmaceutical companies rose from 37 (1996) to 143 (2005).

• 30% of all in vitro diagnostics (IVD) in the EU in 2005 were biotech

• Revenues for biotech vaccines jumped from EUR 65 million in 1996 to EUR 259 million

• In the agroindustry, up to 20% of the sector turnover is now related to biotech

• In Spain, studies show a 12% increase in gross margin for GM maize over conventional production

• In industrial biotech the EU produces about 75% of the world’s enzymes

• About 45% of all manufacturing sectors, for example textiles, pulp & paper use modern biotechnology

• Industrial biotech increases labour productivity by 10-20% over conventional processes

The environmental effects of industrial applications are striking: the change from chemical to biotechnological method for the production of a widespread category of antibiotics showed a reduction of the use of electricity of 37%, of solvents of almost 100% and a reduction in wastewater by 90%. Other industrial applications, such as biodegradable plastics and packaging, could bring similar benefits.

“Studies like the JRC’s Bio4EU are a valuable tool to help get the word out about the benefits of biotechnology, but it is up to the Member States to adopt EU wide rules and show their faith in the value of the facts and the figures,” stated Johan Vanhemelrijck, Secretary General of EuropaBio. Industry calls on the EU Commission and Member States not to let this important study fall by the way side and to continue to implement the necessary support for the biotech industry to flourish in Europe….

Read the full article at SeedQuest.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:29 PM | Permalink

The Guardian
David Adam, environment correspondent
April 18, 2007

Excerpt…

• Organic agriculture 'will never meet demand'
• Professor warns of soaring prices and shortages

David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday April 18, 2007
The Guardian

Britain must continue to intensify its farming practices to meet soaring demand for cheap food and prevent shortages, a leading agricultural expert said yesterday. Demand for biofuels, booming economies of developing countries and climate change will put demand on food supplies that can only be met by intensive techniques, said Professor Bill McKelvey, head of the Scottish Agricultural College. Prices could soar and future generations in the UK may find they can no longer take plentiful food for granted.

At a London briefing, Prof McKelvey defended intensive techniques and said alternatives such as organic farming would not cope with predicted growth in population. "There is a need to continue to intensify farming. Organic farming has a place but it will never feed the growing population of the world," he said.

Media criticism of modern farming techniques after the bird flu outbreak at the Bernard Matthews turkey farm in Suffolk had been unfair, he said, adding that intensive farming protects the environment because it reduces the amount of land used for agriculture. Europe would also have to overcome its "illogical" opposition to genetically modified crops to help boost yields, he said.

"In the UK, we are becoming less self-sufficient in food. I think it's possible in the next 25 to 50 years that there will be food shortages in the UK." The proportion of average British family income spent on food might double from 10% to 20%, he said. The UK currently provides 60% of its own food, and imports were increasing, said Prof McKelvey, who advises industry and the government.

With world population forecast to grow from 6bn to 8.5bn in 50 years, he warned that countries such as New Zealand that export food to Britain were likely to switch attention to China and India. Food demand there is increasing sharply and meat consumption in China has doubled in the last decade. Prof McKelvey said the solution was farmers producing more food on the same amount of land. Wheat production increased four-fold in the last 50 years and in the next 50 years would probably have to rise by the same level again, despite a shortage of suitable land. "There are only two ways to do that. We either take land from rain forests or we intensify existing farms. We will protect the wild environment by making better use of farms."

Plant breeding - conventional and using genetic modification - was the best way to produce more food from the same amount of land. Although very little is grown commercially in Europe, millions of hectares of GM crops have been grown across the world in recent years.

Read the full article at The Guardian.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:51 PM | Permalink

The Age
Peter Ker
April 18, 2007

Here’s a great article excerpt by Peter Ker about GM crops from The Age.

Excerpt…

VICTORIA'S first crop of genetically modified wheat is set to be growing within weeks, after a positive response from the federal regulator to a State Government proposal.

But the Government has been warned it must stick to strict safety measures if it is to proceed with the trial of drought-resistant wheat.

The Age reported in December that the Department of Primary Industries had applied to the federal Gene Technology Regulator for permission to grow GM wheat crops on two sites near Horsham and Mildura.

In its preliminary assessment, the regulator identified 15 potential risks, including the possibility of the modified species being uncontrollably spread by animals or weather.

But the regulator was confident that risks could be completely or significantly negated by precautions, including:

■ A 490-metre exclusion zone between the GM wheat and any other wheat species.

■ A 10-metre exclusion zone between the GM wheat and any other plant.

■ A rabbit-proof fence more than a metre high around all GM wheat trial sites.

■ A ban on the GM wheat being used for anything other than research.

The trial crops are part of an attempt to secure the future of wheat farmers, who have endured years of drought in the north-western parts of the state….

Read the full article at The Age.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:41 PM | Permalink

Farmers Guardian
April 17, 2007

Excerpt…

The survey of society members found that 47 per cent would grow GM crops, 37 per cent ‘were not convinced but could be persuaded’ and 16 per cent were vehemently against the idea.

“We were surprised that only one-in-eight grassland farmers responding said they would never grow GM forage crops,” said Jessica Buss, society director of the society.

“More than half of these declared they were organic producers, and perhaps this indicates why they would be against such new technology.”

Three-quarters of the farmers said they would only use GM varieties if consumers accept the technology.
“So it is obvious that more positive messages about GM crops would need to be forthcoming for most farmers to feel comfortable about sowing crops,” she said.

“Farmers’ priorities for benefits of GM crops they would favour also proved different to the expected order – increased crop yield was close to the bottom rather than the top of preferences….”

Read the full article at Farmers Guardian.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:33 PM | Permalink

Chennai Online News
April 16, 2007

Excerpt…

Coimbatore, April 16: With production of foodgrains and oilseeds remaining either stagnant or facing a shortfall, India, which stands at the crossroads, needed a breakthrough technology to increase productivity in the available land, a senior official in Agricultural Science Recruitment Board, Delhi, said today.

The yield of oilseeds was short by 24 million tonnes, pulses 15 million tonnes, wheat remaining at 70 million tonnes and rice at 85 to 90 million tonnes. Biotechnology could be an improved tool to introduce a second green revolution in India, Dr C D Mayee, Chairman of the Board, said.

Addressing a two-day media workshop on 'Agricultural Biotechnology' here, Mayee, however, said there were a lot of misconceptions and misunderstanding about the technology, which has created a fear among the farming community.

With basic need of food sufficiency in the long run, in the wake of foodgrains production remaining stagnant at 210 to 215 million tonnes in the last one decade, India has already started importing wheat now, he said.

Cotton production, after introduction of BT, a small fraction of the technology, in 2002 in India, has witnessed tremendous growth from 140 lakh bales to 270 lakh bales now. Media has a vital role to play to provide right kind of information on the advantages of BT to the maximum benefit of farmers, he said.

When biotechnology was adopted in human and veterinary care, why was it not adopted in agriculture, Mayee asked.

In his address, G Balachandran, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, said, "More than 38 lakh hectares of cotton cultivation in the country are an indication that the farmers have accepted biotechnology…."

Read the full article at Chennai Online News.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:26 PM | Permalink

Interfax China
April 16, 2007

Here’s a great article excerpt from Interfax China about some of the benefits of genetic engineering…

Excerpt…

Shanghai. April 16. INTERFAX-CHINA - Biotechnology will become a key force behind China's quest in becoming an innovation-driven country, a science and technology ministry official said during a conference today.

Speaking at the three-day Life Science Partnering China & Europe Forum in Shanghai, director-general of the China National Center for Biotechnology Development, Wang Hongguang, predicted that biotechnology would become a new economic growth point for China over the next few years.

Wang has attributed China's upcoming biotech surge to the government-endorsed National Medium and Long term Science & Technology (S&T) Development Plan (2006-2020) launched earlier this year by the State Council. Under the plan, the government will make biotechnology its top priority within the science and technology sector over the next 15 years, with the bio-medical industry as a whole to follow.

Industry players are hoping China's bio-medical industry will develop with the same intensity as China's current IT sector.

"With the creation of a national biotech leadership group, the development of China's biotechnology and bio-medical industry has entered a new era," said Wang.

Wang said the development of China's biotechnology industry and the bio-medical industry as a whole had already made significant achievements.

Currently, China's bio-medical industry is growing at more than 20 percent, with more the 30 bio-medicines and vaccines on the Chinese market, and over 150 biotechnology products undergoing clinical trials.

Wang said China is fast becoming an ideal biotechnology center for foreign companies that are attracted to China's talent pool and the comparatively low costs of R & D.

"The average cost for laboratory animal research in China is about 20 percent of that of the United States and only 10 percent of U.S. expenditure for human resources is used in China," said Wang.

A recent survey on 12 newly-developed first class bio-medicines in China found that the average expenditure on R & D for each new drug was about RMB 100 million ($12.95 million), with the average R & D period for each drug at about 10 years, said Wang.

He said the average time for developing a new drug in the United States was also about 10 years, while the average R & D expenditure for each new drug was about $1 billion - around 80 times more than that in China.

"China is emerging as one of the largest markets for the international bio-medical industry," said Wang….

Read full article at Interfax China.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:07 PM | Permalink

ABC News Online
April 20, 2007

Excerpt...

The push to allow genetically modified (GM) cotton to be grown in the Kimberley region of northern Western Australia has been formally supported by the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley.

A staff recommendation to lobby the State Government to allow GM cotton to be grown in the region was passed unanimously at this week's council meeting.

The State Government has a moratorium on commercial GM crops until 2008.

The state Agriculture Minister Kim Chance says the ban will not be lifted until he is confident GM crops do not pose health risks.

Shire president Michele Pucci says GM cotton should be exempt because it is not a foodstuff and will provide benefits including increased employment.

"Obviously the state has its reasons why they have the moratorium on GM crops but what we're requesting is that they have a look at GM cotton which will not be used for food," he said....

Read the full article at ABC News Online.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:01 PM | Permalink

PR Web
April 16, 2007

Excerpt...

Renowned international economist Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs supports expanded use of plant biotechnology.

St Louis, MO (PRWEB) April 16, 2007 -- About one billion people – or one-sixth of the world’s population – live in extreme poverty or on less than $1 per day. For these individuals, losing a crop to a drought or a crop-destroying insect invasion can be the difference between life and death. Farming innovations such as genetically modified crops can contribute to poverty alleviation by increasing yields, improving nutrition and generating income among resource-poor farmers.

“What we see is that with very practical approaches … not only will the quality of life for the poorest of the poor be raised tremendously, not only will millions of people who otherwise will die be able to stay alive, but also, they will begin the process of economic development. [These investments will unlock the poverty trap and allow them to start moving forward,” says Jeffrey D. Sachs a leading international economic advisor, who for more than 20 years has been involved in identifying challenges to and solutions for ending poverty.

“There’s now promise in the case of many of the biotechnologies in agriculture of fortifying nutrients in places where the people are facing massive nutrient deficiencies – of course, traits that protect against local pests and pathogens,” continues Sachs in an exclusive video interview and podcast available at the Conversations about Plant Biotechnology Web site: http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo. “Now there’s the possibility of drought-resistant varieties. … This would be a phenomenal breakthrough, especially for Africa, which is nearly a whole continent afflicted with the massive risk and reality of drought.”

As director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and of the United Nations Millennium Project, Sachs promotes policies that expand economic opportunities and well being throughout the world. Genetically modified crops hold great promise for subsistence farming because the technology is delivered in the seed. For example, there are genetically modified corn hybrids that produce a protein that protects the plant from specific insect pests – eliminating the danger of crop loss due to insect infestations. Research is currently underway to develop plants that can survive drought conditions.

“You have a lot of African scientists who are right now saying, ‘This really fits our need. This technology is so powerful because it brings in one little seed everything that's needed. The seed’s a great delivery,’” comments Sachs. “The great news is those technologies exist. … Getting those technologies to the poorest farmers is absolutely one of the keys to making the breakthrough out of extreme poverty....”

Read full article at PR Web.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 12:51 PM | Permalink

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
April 23, 2007

In response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the release of genetically modified organisms/seeds, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), not to give approvals to genetically modified products until further orders (Indo Asian News Service, The Times of India, The Hindu, Financial Express). Issues emerging out of this PIL and the order of the SCI were discussed on this blog earlier (September 24, 2006).

In preparation for an upcoming hearing of the PIL, the Petitioners are heaping the same old dust in the hope of strengthening their case.

The major thrust is that their concerns are supported by 6.5 million farmers from across the country, which is unbelievable because the same activists claim that the MNCs are taking the farmers for a ride, as they are totally ignorant of GE crops. The unverified, probably unverifiable, support of 6.5 millions farmers has attracted international publicity from such media as the Free Speech Radio News, without identifying the obscene politics behind the valorous claim. Other than the six and half non-farmer professional activist petitioners, one wonders where from the 6.5 million farmers come, unless truck loads of hired and tutored agitators are brought in, like they do for the political rallies in India.

The activists charged the GEAC and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) with ignoring reports for the third consecutive year, of a suspected link with Bt cotton of the death of sheep, goats, buffaloes and human beings. These reports are still under investigation by the agencies of the Government of Andhra Pradesh (AP), at the suggestion of the GEAC. The death of goats, buffalos and human beings is the new spice added to the earlier reports of death of several sheep and a few cattle. No one has explained why only a couple of Districts of AP, more prominently the Warangal District, are the fountain head of such reports. The activists have not so far proved that Bt cotton is toxic to any organism other than the American Bollworm.

The Greenpeace invoked the Right to Information (RtI) Act, seeking toxicity and allergenicity data for GE rice, brinjal, okra and mustard, which was refused on grounds of 'Confidential Business Information' (CBI). The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled on April 19, 2007, that the DBT should disclose toxicity and allergenicity data on transgenic food crops which are under multilocation field trials across the country. The GoI did not give this information earlier, as Section 8 (1) (d) of RtI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information, including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party’.

The CIC advised the GoI to be proactive and make relevant data public without waiting for applications for disclosure, as per the provisions of Section 4 of the RtI Act. The CIC, however, declined the request of Greenpeace, for making public the minutes of the meetings of the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM), under the DBT, which approved the various proposals of multilocation field trials of genetically modified food crops, but left the decision to the GoI.

In a reply to the PIL, the MoEF provided only a list of 144 applications so far approved for field testing, but not the ‘biological results and implications’ sought in the PIL, upsetting the Petitioners. The MoEF has even questioned the competence of a Court of Law to decide matters of science and technology (Times of India, April 23, 2007). In a comparable situation, the SCI had ruled on April 22, 2007, that ‘in the field of education, a court of law cannot act as an expert’; science and technology issues are much more complex than those of education.

The activists have earlier argued that the level of expression of Bt toxin in Bt cotton was not adequate to afford the protection claimed but now say the opposite, that GE crops have a concentration of Bt toxin 1000 times greater than in non-GE Bt spray and so there is a risk to human health. They are blind to all the biosecurity tests conducted on GE crops the world over, including in India, for over one and a half decades and charge the GEAC with facilitating industry objectives of commercializing an array of GE crops, to the detriment of India's national interest and the sovereign issue of the protection of her biodiversity, of which they appear to be the sole custodians.

The issue of biodiversity is emotionalized and sensationalized, by ignorance or mischief, casting science aside. The activists are impervious to the fact that there are no risks to biodiversity on account of any of the crops under development. Their argument that since India is one of the hotspots or Megadiversity Centres, many plants have their origin here has no basis in science and Chattisgarh is not a Centre of Origin of rice. It is ridiculous to connect GE crop issue with Climate Change.

Toxicity and allergenicity issues are raised again, now adding carcinogenicity, in spite of the fact that no food or feed was ever tested as rigorously as GE foods for safety and that 350 million Americans are a living proof of their safety. The GE food crops have been shown in different contexts, to be safe as food and feed and that there are no environmental risks arising out of their cultivation, no matter what the activists assert.
How long and how more rigorously these tests should be conducted is any one’s guess, as the activists do not accept positive results of any safety tests as this would jeopardize their agenda of blocking all GE products.

The new interim prayers to the SCI include protocols sensitive enough to detect GE product contamination at zero detection levels (!?). Surprisingly, for those who hate all foreign things (except the material comforts), the activists demand for the Swedish, Danish and British Institution of Ombudsman to redress grievances against the GoI. To cap it, they want the Tort Law/Principle to provide for compensation for out of contract mishaps involving GE products.

To top all, there is the ‘no GM crops to be grown in India’ demand. In a country like India, where appeasement of ginger groups is the order of the day, a lesson from banning DDT under activist pressure about three decades ago, and revoking the ban recently by the World Health Organization, on realizing the error after a million deaths and a billion sicknesses, should be kept in mind.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 12:25 PM | Permalink

Balita
April 13 2007

Excerpt…

The gains of biotechnology in the Philippines will be expanded to the 10 poorest provinces.

In a recent national congress on Biotechnology Information and Organization Network (BIONet), Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary for policy and planning Josyline Javelosa said they will embark on maximizing the benefits of agricultural innovations that focus on the poorest provinces.

Javelosa said biotechnology has become a significant factor in increasing farmers income through wider propagation of new crop varieties developed through the use of genetic engineering, tissue culture and cross breeding which translate into higher yields and better-tasting and nutritious food, thus assuring income for direct producers.

The promotion of BIONet, she noted, has become the magnet for Bio-Commerce Centers nationwide of crops, fruits and other agricultural products.

“With research and development of products like rice, sugar, sweet sorghum, cassava, corn, papaya and even malunggay, we now see the possibility that our farmers would enjoy comparative advantage vis-à-vis competing nations,” she said.

She noted there are tasks to be done such as organizing more farmers to benefit from the products of biotechnology, which requires a lot of convincing and arguing to encourage more producers to accept the legitimacy, viability and necessity of biotechnology products.

Javelosa, however, said biotechnology has already been accepted in areas like Negros Oriental, Laguna, Southern Luzon, Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Caraga region, Mindoro, Bulacan, the two Lanao provinces, Nueva Vizcaya, and Davao…

Read full article at Balita.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 12:15 AM | Permalink

GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe Blog
April 13, 2007

Excerpt…

This post started with a safety assessment of Bt Crops as a possible factor in honey bee deaths.

But another story that broke after it was posted gives it extra credibility:

    • Are mobile phones wiping out our bees? (see end of this article)

But first:

Should we worry that Bt (GM) crops may be killing bees?

For this we must consider:

Safety Assessment of Bt Crops for Adult and Larval Honeybees

- by Eric Sachs, Yong Gao and Jian Duan, Presented March 29, 2007, Public Hearing, Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, via Agbioview

Summary

--Entomologists have not been able to determine the cause of CCD (colony collapse disorder) in honey bees. While the cause is not yet clear, there is strong evidence that the production of specific insecticidal proteins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in crops to control targeted caterpillar pests and beetles does not pose a risk to honeybees.

--There is extensive information on the lack of non-target effects to diverse groups of beneficial insects including honey bees and other pollinators from Bt microbial preparations that contain Bt proteins.

--Bt proteins are ideal for use in organic production and in Bt crops because they bind specifically to receptors on the mid-gut of sensitive caterpillar pests and have no deleterious effect on beneficial/non-target insects under the conditions of use, including predators and parasitoids of targeted caterpillar pests and honeybees.

--Scientists perform extensive honeybee safety assessments on all insect-protected crops, including Bt corn and Bt cotton. The Bt proteins in these crops have been shown to have no adverse effect on the honeybee.

--EPA risk assessments have demonstrated that Bt proteins expressed in Bt crops do not exhibit detrimental effects to non-target organisms in populations exposed to the levels of Bt proteins produced in plant tissues.

--Specific studies involving Cry1Ab provide strong evidence of the safety of MON 810 Bt corn to the honeybee (similar studies have been conducted with other Bt proteins in genetically modified crops).

--The EPA concluded that based on the weight of evidence there are no unreasonable adverse effects of the Cry1Ab protein expressed in MON 810 Bt corn to non-target wildlife or beneficial invertebrates….

Read full blog post at GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe Blog.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 12:03 AM | Permalink

GMO Africa Blog
April 01, 2007

Research International, a custom market research firm, last week released findings of a survey on public perception of biotechnology in Kenya. The survey found that Kenyans are ready to grow genetically modified crops.

About 81 per cent of respondents called for the adoption of modern agricultural technologies such as biotechnology.

Asked who they trusted most in disseminating information on genetically modified crops, about 77 per cent of the respondents mentioned medical professionals and the media.

A paltry 15 per cent mentioned nongovernmental organizations, which leads to the question, “Are scientists and the media doing enough to disseminate factual and timely information about genetically modified foods to the public, especially in developing countries where awareness is low?

This is a question I have dealt with since I began blogging on agricultural biotechnology two years ago, and I regret to say that scientists and the media have failed the world as far as genetically modified foods debate is concerned.

Scientists and scientific organizations, mostly, have abdicated the task of defending genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the mass media to public affairs officers.

Rarely do scientists grant media interviews or pen opinion articles stating the true health and environmental benefits of GMOs. They reserve their writings, replete with scientific lingo, for peer-reviewed journals, that are largely beyond the comprehension and reach of ordinary people.

They believe that scientific conferences are the ideal venues to run the GMOs debate. As they confine themselves to Ivory Towers, nongovernmental organizations, with scanty knowledge of GMOs, flood the mass media with sensational propaganda on the issue. They unrelentingly feed the public with lies that GM foods pose grave threat to human health and the environment. Why should scientists allow this mediocrity to thrive?...

Full article at GMO Africa Blog.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:20 PM | Permalink