FBAE Blog

East African (Nairobi)
Esther Nakkazi
Nairobi
May 29, 2007

Excerpt…

ELIZABETH NAKKU WAS pregnant when one day, as she was walking to market in Kireka, a suburb of Kampala, she collapsed.

Good Samaritans took her to a local clinic, but the nurses there declined to handle the patient and, instead referred her to Mulago Hospital.

Nakku, 28, had had a successful first delivery with assistance from a traditional birth attendant and so had assumed all would be well with the second pregnancy.

When she was diagnosed at Mulago, the medics said her problem had something to do with poor diet, leading to anaemia, a condition caused by iron deficiency. A blood transfusion was then administered.

Loss of iron in women increases during pregnancy and iron tablets are administered if the condition is not serious, says Victo Nabuule, a midwife at the obstetrics and gynaecology emergency annex ward at Mulago Hospital.

"Most pregnant women do not know what to eat," she said. "Some suffer from malaria and become anaemic, they bring them here when they are 'paper white' and very weak."

Iron deficiency prevents oxygen from being carried in the blood.

Ms Nabuule said lack of a balanced diet makes pregnant women weak and vulnerable to infection. It can also make them give birth to unhealthy babies and suffer excessive bleeding during childbirth.

Excessive bleeding from pregnancy related complications in Uganda accounts for about 26 per cent of deaths in childbirth.

On average, 16 women die of pregnancy-related problems every day in Uganda, said Dr Olive Sentumbwe-Mugisa, an official of Family Health and Population at the World Health Organisation.

Although the problem of maternal and child mortality cannot entirely be solved through nutrition, scientists believe biotechnology can reduce the number of children lacking Vitamin A and Uganda's maternal mortality, which stands at 505 deaths per 100,000 live births.

BIOTECHNOLOGY MAY ALSO play a role in combating diseases such as HIV/Aids and it is set to become integral to future advances in medicine, particularly in vaccines.

Ugandan scientists have now embarked on a biotechnology project to increase micronutrients in staple foods like bananas, maize, cassava and sorghum in order to give pregnant women, HIV- infected people and young children a chance to eat a balanced diet.

Dr Geoffrey Arinaitwe, a plant biotechnologist at Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, said under the project, genes will be introduced into banana cells to increase the micronutrients.

"All bananas have micronutrients in very small quantities," said Dr Arinaitwe. "This project will increase by tenfold the amount of nutrients in bananas, which I believe will prevent early childhood deaths and maternal mortality."

The bananas will look like normal bananas on the outside but with increased yellowing of the pulp.

The project, which started a year ago, will fortify bananas to make them an important sources of Vitamin A, B and iron.

In sub-Saharan Africa more than three million children under the age of five suffer from blindness due to lack of Vitamin A.

Deficiencies of iron, Vitamin A, protein and zinc are ranked among WHO's top 10 leading causes of death through diseases in developing countries.

The project, supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Queens University of Technology in Australia, is working on improvement in food quality for health.

Ugandans do not get enough iron in their diets from the two main staple foods - bananas and maize - that they consume. The per capita consumption of bananas for Ugandans is 1 kg per day.

More than 50 per cent of the blood collected from donors in the country is used to save the lives of anaemic children, while 25 per cent of transfusions is done on pregnant women with childbirth complications.

Vitamin A deficiency is prevalent in the developing world and mostly in countries with the highest rates of child mortality like Uganda. It leads to blindness and weakens the immune system.

Bananas are sources of potassium, contain vitamin C and B6 and provide soluble fibres.

Heads of state at the African Union summit meeting in Addis Ababa this year endorsed a 20-year biotechnology action plan calling for co-operation among African nations in specific regions to bolster biotechnology research and address biosafety issues.

In 2006, the global area of approved GM crops grew to 102 million hectares, the first time more than 100 million hectares was under such crops in a single year.

The number of farmers growing GM crops exceed 10 million, 90 per cent of them being small-scale, resource-poor farmers from developing countries whose income from these crops contributed to poverty alleviation….

Full article at East African.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 4:32 PM | Permalink

Indian Express
Vikas Dhoot
May 25, 2007

Excerpt…

The new drought-resistant gene could hit the US as early as 2011 and help resolve a part of the world’s water problems, says Dr Harvey L. Glick, director for scientific affairs in Asia-Pacific, Monsanto. In the farm business for over 30 years, Glick joined the agriculture biotech MNC at a time when it was beginning to develop crop biotechnology programmes. He helped introduce the first biotech crop in Canada in 1995 and has been actively involved in the development of biotech crops for Europe, Asia and the Americas. Glick talks to Vikas Dhoot about key issues in Indian and global agriculture, stressing on the need to revive extension counters in India.

You have made breakthroughs in the next generation of BT seeds which are drought-resistant. Can these help ease water disputes around the world?

Today, agriculture consumes 70 per cent of the world’s fresh water. Every country is facing challenges in managing water. We have developed a gene that helps plants to grow better even when rain is not good. We have been testing it in South America and the US for some years now. The first such seed, corn, should be available in the US by 2011-12 while cotton may come soon after. The studies on the new corn seeds have shown an 8-10 per cent higher yield even when rains are not good. I would be the first to admit that the challenges of water distribution are too complex to be solved by this alone, but it can be part of the solution.

India wants a second green revolution to reverse the worsening plight of its farm sector. Any suggestions?

The first green revolution in India was hugely successful. The key reason was the creation of a formidable network of agricultural extension counters—the best in the world—that worked closely with farmers. The farmers had to change the way they did everything. The good thing about biotech crops is that the technology is inside the seed, unlike in the first green revolution.

But since the Eighties, around the world, there has been a problem—public-sector investment in agriculture has shrunk sharply. It’s the same in India, whose agricultural extension network and universities are in a disarray. There is an urgent need to revive them. Despite that, I think Indian farmers have become very progressive—they are already advanced in the use of new biotech crops. Two million Indian farmers now use BT seeds while BT cotton is already planted in more than 8 million acres. In fact, in 2006, the rate of increase in BT cotton in India was higher than in China….

Full article at Indian Express.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 4:25 PM | Permalink

Technology Horizons
May 22, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by Technology Horizons on a survey that says undergraduates are choosing biotechnology as their field of choice, including food biotechnology…

Biotechnology is the field of choice for chemical engineering graduates, according to recent survey findings published by the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE).

The report - published in IChemE's Education for Chemical Engineers journal - shows biotechnology a clear leader out of 15 preferred career options for undergraduate chemical engineering students asked to select their most desirable employment sector on graduation.

The survey was completed by more than 2500 undergraduate students across 15 universities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand, UK, USA and Vietnam.

Report author Professor David Shallcross from the University of Melbourne in Australia said that the findings reflect a changing attitude to chemical engineering.

'Chemical Engineering education has traditionally focused on supplying graduates to the petrochemicals, and oil-and-gas industries with examples used throughout the courses often drawn almost exclusively from these industries,' said Shallcross.

'As the same time new industries, such as the biotechnology industries, have emerged to employ chemical engineers while older industries such as the dairy industry have also turned to chemical engineering graduates.'
The survey also highlights considerable differences between students in different countries, as well as between the different sexes. The finds reveal a lower interest in the environmental sector in the UK than in Australia, Canada, US, and Vietnam and considerably greater interest in the financial sector amongst UK students than all other nations….

… Male students prefer the traditional oil, gas and petrochemical industries while female students favour the bioprocessing and food and drink engineering industries.

Full article at Technology Horizons.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:59 PM | Permalink

The Economic Times
MAY 14, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by The Economic Times on biotech agriculture…

KOLKATA: In case you didn’t know it, India has emerged as the fastest biotech crop growing nation in 2006. Propelled by increased cultivation of biotech cotton, India has also outstripped China as the largest cultivator of the crop by 0.3 million hectares, according to Ms Martina Newell-McGloughlin, a noted US biotech expert.

Ms McGloughlin, who is also the director at California University’s biotech research & education programme, said “India has about 3.8 million hectares under biotech cotton cultivation against 3.5 million hectares in China”. She was talking at a meeting organised by Indian Chamber of Commerce here on Friday.

“India has developed 62 biotech cotton hybrids by 2006 compared to 3 biotech cotton hybrids in 2002. Biotech cotton exports from India have also gone up from 0.9 million bales in 2004 to 4.7 million bales in 2006. Indian biotech cotton cultivators are registering 88% increased profit per hectare which is about $250,” said Ms McGloughlin.

Ms McGloughlin said global biotech crop cultivation had reached 252 million acres across 22 countries….

Full article at The Economic Times.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:55 PM | Permalink

SwissInfo
May 16, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by SwissInfo on proposed new field trials for GM Crops…

Three years after a series of controversial field experiments with genetically modified (GM) wheat, Swiss scientists are planning similar crop trials.

Two teams of university researchers have applied to carry out tests near Zurich and Lausanne, including observations of potential crossbreeding between wheat and wild grass.

The proposed field trials by Zurich University's Institute of Plant Biology and the Institute of Plant Sciences at the city's Federal Institute of Technology would form part of a planned national research programme.

The aim would be to help answer questions about the release of transgenic plants, specifically in Switzerland.

"It is important to clearly say that we are not developing a product for the market," Beat Keller, a lead researcher on the project, told swissinfo.

"We want to find out if GM wheat plants that we have already tested in the labs, which show improved resistance to fungal diseases, also [behave in a similar way] in the field in normal agricultural environments."

They also intend to look at aspects of biological safety to see if the plants have any unexpected impact on the environment, as well as organisms living in the ground or insects.

If the Federal Environment Office gives the go-ahead, trials will run over a two-year period from 2008 in Reckenholz near Zurich, and in Pully, on the outskirts of Lausanne. The office is expected to reach its decision within the next three months….

Full article at SwissInfo.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:51 PM | Permalink

The Monitor (Kampala)
Joseph Olanyo
Pretoria
May 14, 2007

Excerpt…

Genetically Modified crops from African countries will not be denied entry into the European Union (EU), top research scientists have said. Speaking at an AfricaBio Biotechnology Communicators training workshop in Pretoria, South Africa recently, the International Agro Biotechnology Research Specialist, Willy de Greef, said the EU was not opposed to the development of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

"We are concerned that you always do not hear the truth. It is often claimed that the EU is opposed to GMOs. Many people have been told negative things, but we will continue with the meetings to ensure that the technology is adopted," Mr Greef said.

GMOs are organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. GM foods are developed and marketed because of their perceived advantage to either the producers or consumers.

The training workshop was organised by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in conjunction with AfricaBio. It attracted journalists and research scientists from Uganda, Kenya, Malawi and South Africa.

Mr De Greef's remarks come against a background of widespread opposition to the development of GMOs. However, Mr De Greef said six EU countries are currently planting GM crops, with several more hoping to start soon.

He said Spain is leading the way with 60,000 hectares already planted. France, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany and Slovakia, he said, have also increased their acreages fivefold in 2006, from 1,500 hectares in 2005 to 8,500 hectares in 2006.

"What the activists are not telling you is that the most likely GMO crops to be produced in Africa are maize, soybean, cotton and possibly cassava at some future state," Mr Greef said.

"With the exception of cotton, none of these crops are currently being exported to the EU. Should Africa one day become self sufficient in maize and soybeans, surplus exports of approved GM products to the EU will never be in jeopardy."

The President of AfricaBio, Prof Diran Makinde said the majority of Africa's scientists, agricultural research institutions and political leaders have embraced the GM technology and are speeding up the process for the adoption of GM crops….

Full article at The Monitor (Kampala).

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:48 PM | Permalink

The Star
Foo Yee Ping
May 8, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by The Star on agricultural biotechnology…

BOSTON: Malaysia is equally committed to pushing for other industries in spite of its boost to promote biotechnology, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said.

“We are not putting all our eggs into one basket,” the Deputy Prime Minister said.

For example, he said ICT was also a source of wealth for the country, which was why the Government was not neglecting it.

Addressing Malaysian students and delegates of the BIO International Convention here on Sunday, Najib stressed on the importance of biotechnology as “it is the future; it is about creating wealth for the country and uplifting the quality of life for Malaysians.”

He said the 350-member Malaysian delegation to the annual BIO International Convention was the third largest contingent this year outside of North America.

“Four years ago, there were only about 50 Malaysian participants.”

Biotechnology, he said, was so pervasive that Malaysia could not afford to miss out on the exciting developments in the sector.

“We are on the right track but we can’t do it alone. That is why we want to be part of the convention,” he said.

Malaysia would be supportive of ventures such as research on the substitute for blood, he said, adding that two companies had told him that such a prospect was getting nearer….

Full article at The Star.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:45 PM | Permalink

GM Watch
May 20, 2007

Here’s the excerpt from an article published by GM Watch on GM crops…

The scientific ignorance and competence of anti-biotech activists is appalling, but they keep on getting press and have been able to delay, if not stop agbiotech in India through their street level tactics.

Scientists have gone into hiding and they have the field day. This latest case by Aruna Rodriguez should have been dismissed the moment it opened in the courts, had the Ministry of Environment sent in a well trained lawyer and two scientific experts to give witness. The Supreme Court case that delayed GM crops so long had no basis at all, but there was no one to inform the courts. All these scientific concerns that have been visited upon by hundreds of research scientists and health expert's decades ago in the west are being dredged up by Indian activists to scare people. Bt brinjal is as safe any brinjal on the market, may be more safe than those pesticide lased vegetables that are in the market, and for heaven sake don't listen to these activists whose sole aim is to scare and mislead the public to establish their political agenda. Their activism is simply based on anti-science, anti-MNC, anti-capitalist and anti-American agenda. This activism is nothing about the safety of GM crops or the environment.

This report propagates several pieces of scientific nonsense by suggesting that Bt protein binds to mammalian gut cells and that aad and nptII genes code for antibiotics resistance. So what? These resistance genes work only when there is a selection pressure of antibiotics. This issue has been settled more than a decade ago by world class scientists working in the field and many health organizations have given a clean bill of health for these genes.

Somebody is reading up all sorts of nonsense that has been published by a lunatic called Dr, Mae Wan-Ho who is rewriting molecular biology as we all know it. I have argued that her alma mater should take back her PhD for professional misconduct in science by repeatedly writing scientific nonsense about GM crops. CaMV is a plant virus and does not infect animals. I have told her as much to her face when she came to speak at the World Bank and the US senate. I recall at a high class scientific meeting of NABC in South Carolina in early 90s, she was chased off from the stage when challenged about her assertions. That woman has absolutely no shame left in her. By the she is a buddy of India's own great agricultural scientist and a biotech expert called Vandana Shiva. They are like twin sisters.

CaMV 35S promoter is a eukaryotic promoter very useful to express alien genes in artificial constructs and it has been drafted ingenuously to construct transgenic plants. It has been in safe use for almost three decades now. Dr. Ho could not get her paper published in any self respecting scientific journal, but goes on feeding this nonsense which is lapped up by anti-GM activists in countries like India to make their case. Nobody takes Dr. Ho's claims seriously and has been pushed to the margins but Indian activists are now rediscovering her writings and coach their lawyers to represent such scientific nonsense and mislead the courts. It is a pity that the Indian scientific community does not go to the court get these time wasting court cases dismissed out of hand. These activists are wasting valuable court time and the time of the government regulators.

By using the scientific jargons like promoters, antibiotic resistance markers with non-scientific people like lawyers' judges and journalists, these activists might get publicity, but they are not going to win at the end, because they are talking of scientific nonsense. Those who are complaining about CaMV promoter must stop to wonder next time they bite a piece of brinjal or any other healthy vegetable. They are all loaded with multitude of viruses and those vegetables don't show symptoms of disease only because of eatable's resistance to viruses. But viruses are there. Billions of people vegetables everyday that are loaded with viruses and has anyone heard of a plant virus causing diseases in humans? People should have common sense which often is not so common. When scientific ignoramuses get top activism not fully understanding science, they make a laughing stock of themselves. Unfortunately, our courts, our politicians and bureaucrats cannot tell pseudo-scientists from a real one. They all get easily mislead once they are told that poor that farmers are being taken for ride. This is the tragedy of India….

Full article at GM Watch.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:43 PM | Permalink

The Financial Express
May 21, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by The Financial Express on GM crops…

NEW YORK, May 20 (PTI): A controversial modified rice - which will have protein often found in breast milk - has got clearance of American regulators and is expected to planed in Kansas State.

This is among the first food crops containing genes that produce human protein to gain approval of the United States Department of Agriculture, Nature reported yesterday.

But many other pharmaceutical genetically-modified crops are already grown indoors or in inedible plants such as tobacco. The rice strains, made by Ventria Bioscience in Sacramento, California, produce lysozyme, lactoferrin and human serum albumin, commonly found in breast milk, in their seeds, it said.

Lysozyme and lactoferrin are proteins with anti-bacterial, viral and fungal properties, the report said. Ventria says they aim to use the rice to create drinks that can combat diarrhoea, and dietary supplements to help reverse anaemia. Diarrhoea, which often stems from gastro- intestinal infection, is a major killer of children worldwide.

Many further regulatory hurdles involving other agencies would need to be passed before products made from this rice could be sold to consumers, Nature said.

The crop, which has been tested in Peru, was given preliminary approval in March, and the USDA then opened the proposal up for public comment, it said, adding of the more than 20,000 comments they received, only 29 were positive, although many of the negative comments consisted of form letters….

Full article at The Financial Express.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:40 PM | Permalink

BharatTextile.com
May 18, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by BharatTextile.com on GM crops…

NEW DELHI: The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has cleared 49 new transgenic cotton hybrids for commercial cultivation in a single day, industry sources said here on May 17.

The decision follows the Supreme Court's May 8 ruling, relaxing its ban on fresh approvals for commercial release of any genetically modified (GM) crop.

The committee in its meeting on 11th May has approved 49 new GM hybrids that farmers can plant in the forthcoming kharif season and this is in addition to the 62 already approved since 2002 till the Supreme Court's ban imposed on September 22, 2006.

The 49 hybrids include six of Vibha Agrotech Ltd; five each of Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd and Nandi Seeds Ltd; four of DSCL's Bioseed Research India Ltd; and three each of J.K. Agri-Genetics Ltd, Ankur Seeds and Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd.

Further others whose transgenic received approval were: two each of Mahyco Seeds Ltd, Proagro Seed Company, Rasi Seeds, Ajeet Seeds, Pravardhan Seeds and Kaveri Seed Company; and one each of Nath Seeds, Namdhari Seeds, Zuari Seeds, Vikram Seeds, Navkar Hybrid Seeds, Ganga Kaveri Seeds and Amar Biotech Ltd….

Full article at BharatTextile.com.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:38 PM | Permalink

Agbios
Richard Cornett
Penton Media, Inc.
May 18, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by Agbios on agricultural biotechnology…

Freshman California Assemblyman Jared Huffman has resurrected a failed bill of two years ago, AB 541, that is a colossally bad piece of legislation that would impact researchers, seed and biotech companies, and plant breeders, as well as farmers and consumers in general.

In 2005, Assemblyman John Laird introduced a similar measure aimed at holding makers of genetically engineered crops (GE) liable for damages. Fortunately, it died in the Assembly.

So, here we are, a couple of years down the road, and we are being forced to revisit the issue being pushed by the Democrat from San Rafael. The Laird legislation was bad then, and Huffman’s version is equally bad now.

For now, the bill has been put on hold in the Assembly Agriculture Committee, but agriculture will have to revisit it again early next year.

In essence, the measure creates a series of obstacles to agricultural research and practices that employ gene-splicing technology — the most precise, predictable, and reliable techniques for the genetic improvement of plants.

Besides holding manufacturers developing GE crops liable for damage if their work becomes present in nearby fields, the legislation would ban open-field production of GE crops in the development of medications; would require growers to give county ag commissioners at least 30 days notice before engaging in open-field development of other GE plants; and would establish a GE crop registration process so that non-GE farmers can reduce the chance of crop “contamination.”

Further, the language establishes “strict liability” on manufacturers of agricultural bio traits. Strict liability has always been reserved for inherently dangerous products — such as the making of explosives or the keeping of a boa constrictor as a pet. It has no place in agriculture.

Huffman says the reason this topic has been resurrected is directly linked to an incident last year in which an experimental form of rice showed up in grain elevators in Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana. The freshman lawmaker says AB 541 is necessary to protect California farmers against significant losses if their conventional or organic crops are ruined by GE plants, seeds or pollen.

Huffman fails to realize that current legal recourse is available and works for growers. This bill would impose liability on the manufacturer of a safe, legal, government-sanctioned product, based on activity that could only occur long after the product left the manufacturer’s care and control.

Additionally, no U.S. grower has been sued because they were unknowingly growing crops containing biotech traits. Only the most egregious cases of patent infringement have resulted in lawsuits.

During the past decade, only 90 lawsuits have been pursued against farmers for patent infringement, in contrast to millions of farmers (in the U.S.) who have planted GE crops.

Regarding a crop registration process, there is no need to establish a burdensome bureaucratic registration process for a problem that doesn’t exist. Talking to your neighbors about their planting intentions is the best way to reduce the chance of GE traits turning up in your crops.

And, it’s well worth noting, that only three biotech crops — corn, cotton, and alfalfa — are grown on any significant acreage in California. Organic production for each of these is on a tiny amount of land, and the National Organic Standard does not ban trace amounts of biotech products in organic crops….

Full article at Agbios.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:35 PM | Permalink

Politics of Food and Health
Rachel Dechenne
May 20, 2007

Excerpt…

The United Nations (1) newly released report Sustainable Bioenergy: A Framework for Decision Makers (2) is supposed to offer a comprehensive picture of the current biofuels issue. The consensus is:

1. Need for integrated policy analysis that prioritise food security: Policy makers need to understand the interactions and effects of the policy domains that are shaping the development of liquid biofuels sector (energy, environment, agriculture and trade) at the various levels (national, regional and global).

2. The linking of agricultural commodity to biofuels production is an essential but not ideal transition to a biofuels industry that does not rely on major commodity crops.

3. Major efforts have to be put in the development of 2nd generation cellulosic technologies that convert biomass into fuels.

All good stuff, though tricky to implement because of among other things, the logistics of this new sector, market distortions based on subsidies and the huge tax incentives required for the market to take off. What disappointed me, a bit, is the one only mention of the GM crops question. See page 48 point b:" ...It is also critical to better determine if the benefits of GM crops can outweigh their costs...” It would have been good to have a common statement expressing more doubt about the benefit of using GM crops for biofuels production. It left open the debate and somehow supports the new strategy of GM manufacturers….

Full post at Politics of Food and Health.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:30 PM | Permalink

Medical News Today
May 14, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published in Medical News Today on agricultural biotechnology…

A team of scientists at the University of Missouri-Columbia has discovered a way to create engineered minichromosomes in maize and attach genes to those minichromosomes. This discovery opens new possibilities for the development of crops that are multiply resistant to viruses, insects, fungi, bacteria and herbicides, and for the development of proteins and metabolites that can be used to treat human illnesses.

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Weichang Yu, Fangpu Han, Zhi Gao, Juan M. Vega and James A. Birchler built on a previous MU discovery about the creation of minichromosomes to demonstrate that genes could be stacked on the minichromosomes.

“This has been sought for a long time in the plant world, and it should open many new avenues. If we can do this in plants, many advances could be done in agriculture that would not otherwise be possible, from improved crops to inexpensive pharmaceutical production to other applications in biotechnology,” said Birchler, professor of biological sciences in the MU College of Arts and Science.

A minichromosome is an extremely small version of a chromosome, the threadlike linear strand of DNA and associated proteins that carry genes and functions in the transmission of hereditary information. Whereas a chromosome is made of both centromeres and telomeres with much intervening DNA, a minichromosome contains only centromeres and telomeres, the end section of a chromosome, with little else. However, minichromosomes have the ability to accept the addition of new genes in subsequent experiments.

Birchler said there have been unsuccessful efforts to create artificial chromosomes in plants but this is the first time engineered minichromosomes have been made. Minichromosomes are able to function in many of the same ways as chromosomes but allow for genes to be stacked on them. Although other forms of genetic modification in plants are currently utilized, the new minichromosomes are particularly useful because they allow scientists to add numerous genes onto one minichromosome and manipulate those genes easily because they are all in one place, Birchler said. Genetic modification with traditional methods is more complicated because scientists have little control over where the genes are located in the chromosomes and cannot stack multiple genes on a separate chromosome independent of the others.

By stacking genes on minichromosomes, scientists could create crops that have multiple beneficial traits, such as resistance to drought, certain viruses and insects, or other stresses. In addition, minichromosomes could be used for the inexpensive production of multiple foreign proteins and metabolites useful for medical purposes. Because of their protein-rich composition, a part of the maize kernels (called an endosperm) can be used to grow animal proteins and human antibodies that treat diseases and disease symptoms. Minichromosomes could enable new and better production of these foreign proteins and antibodies. In addition, scientists also may be able to use them to develop plants better suited for biofuel production….

Full article at Medical News Today.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:28 PM | Permalink

Technology Review
By Kevin Bullis
May 16, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article by Kevin Bullis and published by Technology Review on the benefits of genetic engineering…

The genetically-modified plants break down their own cellulose, making it possible to use waste biomass to produce ethanol.

Researchers have genetically engineered transgenic corn plants that produce enzymes that can turn their leaves and stems into sugar by breaking down cellulose. The plants could lower the cost of creating ethanol from these sources, making such biofuel more competitive with that produced from corn kernels, the primary source of ethanol in the United States today.

Cellulosic sources of ethanol, such as waste biomass and switchgrass, are attractive because they are cheap and abundant. But converting cellulose, a complex carbohydrate, into sugars that can be fermented to make ethanol is more expensive than converting the starch in corn grain into sugar: breaking down the cellulose typically requires expensive enzymes extracted from genetically engineered microbes.

Now Mariam Sticklen, professor of crop and soil science at Michigan State University, and her colleagues have genetically engineered corn to produce the same enzyme that the transgenic microbes produce. The plant-grown cellulase could save about 30 to 50 cents per gallon of ethanol produced, Sticklen says.

Key to Sticklen's advance was engineering the corn so that the enzymes would not break down cellulose while the plants were still alive. Part of the solution was to use an enzyme found in bacteria that live in hot springs. The enzyme is only active at high temperatures--higher than those that a plant's cells would reach while it is alive. As a result, the enzyme remains dormant until it is heated to about 50 ºC.

Sticklen's transgenic corn is "one of several promising approaches to address the central obstacle impeding establishment of a cellulosic-biofuels industry: the absence of low-cost technology to overcome the recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass," says Lee Lynd, professor of engineering and biology at Dartmouth College, in Hanover, NH. But he adds that in-plant production of enzymes comes with its own challenges….

Full article at Technology Review.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:18 PM | Permalink

GMO Pundit
Esther Nakkazi, The East African (Kenya)
May 16, 2007

Excerpt…

Uganda will this week import genetically modified sweet banana plants from Belgium for field trials. The transgenic plants - plants that possess a gene or genes that have been transferred from a different species - are resistant to pests and disease.

The GM sweet banana locally known as "bogoya" and mostly eaten as a dessert, will from this month, be tested at the Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) for resistance to the notorious bacterial wilt and Black Sigatoka fungal disease.

Field results are expected within 5-10 years.

The new variety is expected to save up to 50 per cent of yields that are destroyed by pests and diseases thus increasing production of the country's staple crop, which is also popular in Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to Geoffrey Arinaitwe, the Ugandan scientist who was involved in the development variety, if the field trials succeed, Uganda will be the provider of the technology in Africa.

Mr Arinaitwe said after the field trials in Kawanda, the best transgenic line will be selected and multiplied. Later, the technology will be transferred to highland bananas locally known as matooke and to the plantain variety.

The banana wilt is the number one fungal disease that affects banana production world wide. The wilt wipes out at least 90 per cent of the fruit on the trees it affects. An infected tree is poisonous to both humans and animals.

Scientists say the commonest way in which the disease is spread is through pollination by bees that pick pollen from the female of the plant and transport it to male banana plants for cross-pollination.

However, with the GM banana variety, scientists say there is no risk of contamination of other plants and to the environment in case of a disease breakout.

"The gene within the GM plant cannot be transferred to another plant because the banana will not produce fertile pollen. So there is no risk of gene contamination for other plants and the environment," said Mr Arinaitwe.

Bananas are cultivated in 80 tropical countries, representing the fourth most consumed food crop in the world. Efforts in the region include, a virus resistant sweet potato currently undergoing field trials in Kenya, while insect-resistant maize and cotton will be tested soon.

Pest and disease-resistant GM crops have significantly reduced the use of chemical pesticides. The most important potential benefit of GM crops will be their contribution to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of reducing poverty and hunger by 50 per cent in 2015.

Prof Jocelyn Webster, executive director of AfricaBio a research organisation said cultivation of GM crops is one way of increasing food security in Africa. "These crops are not the final solution, but a vital tool in the fight against food insecurity in Africa and to make the continent less dependant on food aid," she said….

Full article at GMO Pundit.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:12 PM | Permalink

The Age
Chee Chee Leung
May 16, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by The Age on biotech agriculture…

AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist has criticised opponents of genetic modification, describing them as "unprincipled minorities" that were spreading false facts and hype.

Speaking at a conference in Melbourne, Jim Peacock said those circulating misinformation about GM were largely "self-serving organic farmers and ill-informed environmental activists".

His comments were made during a session on biotechnology and food at the Future Summit, where Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, said he believed resistance to GM was starting to wane. "The fear I think is gradually and slowly receding," Sir Gustav said after the session. "But I also think this is something that doesn't need to be rushed."

The Sunday Age reported last weekend that the Bracks Government was preparing to end the state's moratorium on commercial planting of GM canola, which expires at the end of next February.

But on Monday, Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper denied that the Government had made up its mind, saying there would be broad consultation before any decision was made on the moratorium.

Dr Peacock, who played an important role in developing GM cotton while working at the CSIRO, told yesterday's conference that gene technology had improved the world's understanding of living things, and "this new knowledge should be put to the best possible use"….

Full article at The Age.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:06 PM | Permalink

The West Australian
16th May 2007

Here’s the excerpt from an article published in The West Australian on GM crops…

Genetically modified cotton would deliver a range of environmental and economic benefits to farmers in WA’s Ord River region, according to a new report co-written by the Department of Agriculture.

The report collates a decade of research and will add to growing pressure on the State Government to accept GM cotton rather than maintain its ban until a review of its policy next year.

Its release comes as Australia’s chief scientist, Jim Peacock, unleashed a stinging attack on opponents of genetic modification, describing them as “unprincipled minorities” which were spreading false facts and hype.

The NORpak report, due to be launched tomorrow, provides a technical guide to cotton production in WA’s north, and is largely the work of the Cotton Catchment Communities CRC, with significant input from the Department of Agriculture and Food and the CSIRO.

CRC chief executive Guy Roth said GM cotton varieties which were less reliant on conventional insecticides and herbicides had opened a window of opportunity previously denied to northern Australia….

Full article at The West Australian.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:59 PM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information

Excerpt…

Study says six genetically enhanced crops increased grower incomes by $1.9 billion

U.S. farmers who planted six genetically enhanced crops in 2003 earned an additional $1.9 billion over what they would have earned planting conventional varieties, and were also more likely to use environmentally friendly growing practices, according to a new study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP).

The center's study, released Oct. 20, 2004, said genetically enhanced canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soybean and squash increased grower incomes by an additional $1.9 billion, boosted crop yields by 5.3 billion pounds and reduced pesticide use by 46.4 million pounds in 2003.

"Plant biotechnology continues to produce real gains for growers and promotes sustainable agriculture in the United States," said Sujatha Sankula, Ph.D., the lead author of the study and a researcher with the private, nonprofit, non-advocacy research organization based in Washington, D.C. "This new technology has revolutionized agriculture and is creating widespread economic and environmental benefits."

The growers who received the greatest economic gains from biotech crops in 2003 were in the principal corn- and soybean-growing states of the Upper Midwest: Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota. But there were economic benefits in all 42 states where the six biotech crops (11 different varieties) were grown.

"Whether it was papaya in Hawaii, cotton in Louisiana or soybeans in South Dakota, the benefits from growing biotech crops were significant," Sankula said.

The study updates and reinforces the findings of a June 2002 center study that focused on the same six crops (eight different varieties). That analysis of crops planted in 2001 was one of the first comprehensive studies to document the impacts of biotech crops. Compared with 2001, biotech varieties increased grower incomes by 27 percent, boosted yields by 41 percent and reduced production costs by 25 percent.

Sankula said one of the greatest endorsements of biotech crops was that farmers continue to adopt genetically enhanced varieties in greater numbers. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of U.S. acres planted with biotech-derived crops has increased by 26 million acres — a 32 percent increase. For all six crops, the percentage of acres planted with biotech varieties increased….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:41 PM | Permalink

The Huffington Post
Kerry Trueman

Here’s the excerpt of an article published by The Huffington Post on GM crops…

Lock your doors. Bolt your windows. There's something in THE FOG!

That's a line from John Carpenter's classic 1980 horror film, but it's also the basis of a lawsuit on the coast of central California, where the fog stands accused of lifting legally applied pesticides from conventional farms and depositing them on organically grown herbs on a nearby farm, ruining $500,000 worth of dill.

Can organic and conventional farms butt borders without butting heads? A Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge has issued an injunction against Western Farm Services, a Fresno company that provides and applies pesticides to conventional farms, to stop spraying pesticides while it ponders the case of Jacobs Farms v. Western Farm Services.

Fog, according to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, has the power to "turn pesticides into liquid and carry them off days after they were sprayed." Call it "nurture" versus nature, a collision between man-made methods of trying to tweak our ecosystem and, well, the proverbial forces of nature.

How can you hold the law of unintended consequences accountable for breaking the law? Western Farm Services didn't commit any crimes. According to the Sentinel, which reported this story last week, "under state code, a pesticide sprayer's responsibility to stop chemicals from drifting into other fields ends after the pesticide is applied."

But the fog apparently carried the pesticides from fields of conventionally grown Brussels sprouts to the 120 acres of Wilder Ranch State Park that Larry Jacobs rents to grow organic herbs.

The chemicals in question are used to control cabbage moths, but their residues are not permitted on any kinds of herbs, conventional or organic. When Larry Jacobs' dill crop tested positive for the pesticide residue in December, his $500,000 crop was a total loss.

Now, the same thing has happened with his spring crop. They're still tallying the numbers, but it surely adds up to another big loss for Jacobs.

Santa Cruz attorney Austin Comstock, who's representing Jacobs, told the Sentinel "There's a traditional concept in Anglo-Saxon law that you use your property in a way not to damage mine. If you damage mine there's some redress there."

Sounds reasonable. But we live in an era where Monsanto can plant genetically modified crops and then, when their patented seeds are carried by the bees or the breeze to nearby organic farms, take the hapless farmer to court for stealing their product--and win. By that logic, I could sue my next door neighbor for damages because my bamboo invaded her yard (which, of course, it did--talk about broken borders, oy.)

The livelihood of both organic and conventional farmers is at stake here. Pesticides and GMOs routinely show up like uninvited agri-biz ambassadors crashing the organic garden gate, but a ban means putting the interests of organic farmers ahead of conventional crop growers….

Full article at The Huffington Post.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 9:56 PM | Permalink

Environmental Views
Dennis T. Avery
May 10, 2007

The following is a great article by Dennis T. Avery on the genetically engineered food, Golden Rice…

CHURCHVILLE, VA—The media this week is full of dire warnings about man-made global warming. Greenpeace and the UN say Americans must move quickly to give up 80–90 percent of their current energy use to prevent millions of potential human deaths from an over-heated planet. The haste to destroy the world’s economy is strange considering: 1) there has been no significant global warming for the past nine years; 2) most of our current modest warming took place before 1940; and, 3) much of the scientific evidence gathered the last twenty years points directly to the sun as the source of our cyclical warmings and coolings over the last million years.

Oddly enough, Greenpeace is, at this same moment, proposing endless delays for a far cheaper way and proven way to prevent millions of human deaths—genetically engineered Golden Rice. Golden Rice, like carrots, contains beta carotene, which the human body turns into Vitamin A. Rich-world kids get their Vitamin A mostly from meat, milk and eggs, which Third World kids can’t afford. Golden Rice yields far more bio-available Vitamin A to poor kids than do carrots or leafy greens.

The new rice could prevent a million kids a years in third world countries from going blind due to severe Vitamin A deficiency in their diets and reduce death rates from such diseases as measles, diarrhea, and malaria. It is estimated that two million lives a year could be saved by this inexpensive and simple dietary addition.

Greenpeace opposes Golden Rice on the vague generalization that genetic engineering is “too dangerous.” Yet Greenpeace has documented no risks at all from Golden Rice or any other biotech food—let alone a risk that would stack up against the ongoing deaths of millions of kids per year.

At two million deaths per year, in fact, Greenpeace is rapidly becoming a real competitor to Rachel Carson in the global “deadliest killers” sweepstakes. Rachel duped us into believing that DDT was too dangerous to use, indoors, to protect kids in the tropics from malaria mosquitoes. Rachel and her willing followers’ DDT phobia has triggered only about one million deaths per year, however, so Greenpeace is rapidly closing in on her total of needless human slaughter.

Golden Rice was developed by Swiss government researchers, and given free to a public-private partnership for cross-breeding into farmers’ rice varieties. Greenpeace has worked to make biotech testing and approval so onerous that it took five years just to get a field trial of the Golden Rice seeds! And the field trial had to be in America, because no poor country had all the regulatory bells and whistles in place to conduct it. On the present schedule, it now looks as though it will take a total of 13 years and 14 million deaths to put Golden Rice in the mouth of any poor, at-risk child.

How unfair is it that Third World children are the major victims of both Rachel Carson and Greenpeace?

Since Greenpeace presents itself also as a leading authority on global warming, should we re-examine their stance on that issue too?

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and is the Director for Center for Global Food Issues (www.cgfi.org). He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. Readers may write him at Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421

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

American Farm
By GALEN P. DIVELY
Extension Pest Management Specialist
University of Maryland

Excerpt...

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has caused much concern among beekeepers nationwide and it is not clear to date what is causing the die-off.

Genetically modified crops, specifically Bt corn, have been suggested as a potential cause of CCD. While this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence based on a multitude of studies argues strongly that the current use of Bt corn is not associated with CCD.

The hazard to bees due to any potential toxicant depends on toxicity and exposure. The endotoxins currently expressed in Bt corn (Cry1 types against caterpillars; Cry3 types against beetles) are not biologically active against hymenopteran insects such as the honey bee, nor do the CCD symptoms resemble those expected in Bt intoxicated organisms. Exposure is also very low because the expression of endotoxins in pollen is barely detectable in most Bt corn hybrids and corn does not produce nectar.

For these reasons, bees are not commonly found foraging in corn fields. Some argue that the increase in bee loss has paralleled the increase in Bt corn in the United States; however, severe bee losses have occurred in Europe and in areas of Canada where Bt crops are not grown.

What do the scientific studies say about the issue? Numerous laboratory studies have examined the potential non-target effects of Bt corn on honey bees by feeding high doses of the pollen or purified endotoxin mixed with honey or sugar syrup directly to larvae in brood cells. This approach is a standard protocol for Tier I testing of non-target effects on bees and required by EPA before insect-resistant transgenic crops are approved for registration.

Published studies and other technical reports submitted to EPA have all shown no adverse acute effects. In particular, recent laboratory studies in New Zealand and Switzerland exposed bees by feeding on pollen treated with purified Cry1 endotoxins at doses considered well above the maximum environmental exposure levels encountered in the field. Results showed no negative effects on bee survival.

Laboratory feeding studies at the University of Maryland also showed no effects on the weight and survival of honey bees feeding on Cry1Ab-expressing sweet corn pollen for 35 days.

Potential sublethal effects of Bt corn on honey bees have also been addressed, but not as extensively as the acute effects.
For newly-emerged bees, the presence of Bt proteins in ingested pollen may affect hypopharyngeal gland development and thus the ability of nurse bees to make brood food.

However, the same studies in New Zealand and Switzerland reported no effects of Bt pollen or endotoxin on hypopharyngeal gland development of newly-emerged bees.
Results of another recent study conducted in indoor flight cages showed no effects of Cry1Ab protein exposure on mortality, syrup consumption, or learning capacities of free-flying honey bees, but foraging activity was slightly reduced.

A two-year field study (soon to be published in the European bee journal Apidologie) conducted by this author and his graduate student represents the first attempt to expose functional colonies of honey bees to Bt corn pollen under open field conditions. In this Maryland study, colonies placed in Bt sweet corn plots were allowed to forage on corn pollen and also fed Bt pollen cakes for 28 days. The pollen cake consumption alone represented approximately 44 percent of the expected daily pollen requirements of each exposed hive.

Results showed no adverse effects on bee weight, foraging activity, colony bee strength and brood development....

Full article at American Farm.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:28 PM | Permalink

Spiked Online

The following is a submission to a survey that was conducted describing innovations such as GM Crops.

Channapatna S Prakash
Professor of plant molecular genetics at Tuskegee University

As a plant breeder and agricultural scientist, I believe that the greatest ‘recent’ innovation in my field has been the development of genetically modified (GM) crops.

This began in the early 1980s with the invention of methods to directly introduce foreign genes into plants. Since then scientists have developed many new plant varieties with novel traits of value to farmers and the consumers. The innovation spawned a burgeoning field of agricultural biotechnology that has vast potential to help reduce the footprint of agriculture on the environment, boost food production worldwide, help achieve greater food security in the developing countries, reduce our reliance on chemical inputs, enhance the nutrition and quality of our food, and also help develop innovative products such as biofuels and pharmaceuticals.

While many European countries are still reluctant to embrace GM technology in farming, the rest of the world has moved forward growing these crops on more than a billion acres in the past 10 years, resulting in tremendous benefits to their growers and the environment. While these benefits have been real and substantial, all of the supposed ‘risks’ from GM crops claimed by sceptics have been either hypothetical, not-unique or too insignificant to be of any concern.

Channapatna S Prakash is Professor of plant molecular genetics in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at Tuskegee University and president of the AgBioWorld Foundation.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:19 PM | Permalink

Spiked Online

The following is a submission to a survey that was conducted describing innovations in agricultural biotechnology.

Dr Jorge E Mayer
MIP TM attorney, manager Golden Rice Project

The most important breakthrough in my area of work was the development of the capability to introduce genes into plants across the species barrier. This has not only paved the way to enhance the nutritional qualities of crops in a tissue-specific manner, as in the case of Golden Rice, but has opened the gate in general to the Doubly Green Revolution, as it has been coined.

Over the last 10 years, the adoption of genetically enhanced crops has advanced at an unprecedented pace in the history of agriculture. Moreover, the ability to turn genes on and off is being used as a tool to understand plant physiology at the molecular level, with the prospect of facilitating the rise of second-generation transgenics that will contribute to feeding a growing world population in a sustainable manner.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:10 PM | Permalink

Economic Sense
May 1, 2007

1) Safer Chemical Use than Conventional Synthetic and Organic Biological Controls
2) Improved Soil Conservation
3) Improved Nutrient Profiles
4) Carbons Sequestration - Carbon Credits
5) Improved Biodiversity
6) Decreased Dependence on Fossil Fuel
7) Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Explanatory Notes:
Roundup Ready technology has allowed for glyphosate herbicide to substitute for 7.2 million pounds of other chemicals that are more toxic and persistent in the environment. Bt expressed in plants is much safer than organic broadcast Bt, sulfur, copper, or conventional synthetics. Bt and glyphosate resistant varieties make strip tillage, no- till, and reduced tillage practices, as well as crop rotation more viable and profitable. These practices improve soil conservation, require less fossil fuel use, reduce greenhouse gas production, and complement carbon sequestration efforts as opposed to tillage practices of organic and conventional agriculture. By using safer more precise chemicals combined with better genetics, crop yields are optimized disturbing less land and maintaining more diversity among both pest and non pest populations....

Full article at Economic Sense .

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:04 PM | Permalink

Bio-Central Information
May 6, 2007

Excerpt...

The debate over the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops is growing increasingly complex, intense, and extremely emotional. It is further complicated as new research is published. Are GM crops safe for the environment?

This Pocket K attempts to shed light on this issue by addressing basic questions regarding GM crops and the environment.

Assessing the environmental impact of GM crops is often difficult as many factors are considered. Some scientists focus on the potential risks of GM crops, while others emphasize their potential benefits. Just what are the issues and how can we address them?

What is the current environmental situation?

A growing population, global warming, and loss of biodiversity are having a tremendous impact on our environment.
By the year 2020, there will be 8 billion people living on this planet. This means that in the next 20 years, population is expected to increase by 2 billion. Feeding these people will mean massive changes in the production, distribution, and stability of food products.

Unfortunately, cropland and population are not uniformly distributed. For example, China has only 7% of the world’s productive land but 20-25% of the world’s population. This situation is aggravated by diminishing cropland due to erosion, fewer renewable resources, less water, and a reduced population working the land.

The destruction of wilderness and forests and continued use of coal and oil have led to a steady increase in carbon dioxide levels resulting in global warming. It is predicted that the average global temperature will rise by 2-3 ºC by the year 2100 with increasing fluctuations in weather conditions. Climate change can radically alter rainfall patterns and therefore require the migration of people and shifts in agricultural practices.

Further, an increasing human population is responsible for wilderness destruction, water quality problems, and diversion of water. The loss of habitat has resulted in many species being displaced.

Thus, to conserve forests, habitats, and biodiversity, it is necessary to ensure that future food requirements come only from cropland currently in use.

What are the environmental benefits of GM crops?

One of the significant environmental benefits of GM crops is the dramatic reduction in pesticide use, with the size of the reduction varying between crops and introduced trait.

In 2000, total global reduction in pesticide use was estimated at 22.3 million kg of formulated product as a result of using herbicide tolerant GM soybean, seed rape, cotton and corn varieties and insect protected GM cotton; the deployment of insect-resistant Bt varieties was estimated to have reduced the total world use of insecticides by 14%.1

In the USA, adoption of GM crops resulted in pesticide use reduction of 45.6 million pounds in 2001 (Gianessi et al. 2002).2

Use of Bt cotton in China has led to a 60-80% reduction in the use of foliar insecticides3 and an estimated 15,000 tons reduction in pesticide use.4

Herbicide tolerant soybean farmers in North America are able to spray less to control weeds and use no-till or conservation-till cultivation systems.5,6,7

Reduced use of pesticides can significantly decrease their effects on water quality through run-off and leaching of residues into surface and groundwater. For example, run-off water from US fields planted with Bt cotton was virtually free of insecticides during a four-year US Department of Agriculture study.

GM crops can significantly improve crop yields, so that more food can be grown on less land area. For example, in the US, 66 million bushels of corn were saved from the corn borer in 1999.6

How are GM crops assessed for environmental safety?

GM crops are thoroughly evaluated for environmental effects before entering the marketplace. They are assessed by many stakeholders in accordance with principles developed by environmental experts around the world.8,9,10 Among those who conduct risk assessment procedures are the developers of GM crops, regulatory bodies, and academic scientists.

Most countries use similar risk assessment procedures in considering the interactions between a GM crop and its environment. These include information about the role of the introduced gene, and the effect that it brings into the recipient plant. Also addressed are specific questions about unintentional effects such as: impact on non-target organisms in the environment whether the modified crop might persist in the environment longer than usual or invade new habitats likelihood and consequences of a gene being transferred unintentionally from the modified crop to other species.

What are the potential risks?

Potential of the introduced genes to outcross to weedy relatives as well as the potential to create weedy species.

Outcrossing is the unintentional breeding of a domestic crop with a related plant. A major environmental concern associated with GM crops is their potential to create new weeds through outcrossing with wild relatives or simply by persisting in the wild themselves.

The potential for the above to happen can and is assessed prior to introduction and is monitored after the crop is planted as well. A ten-year study initiated in 1990 demonstrated that there is no increased risk of invasiveness or persistence in wild habitats for GM crops (oilseed rape, potatoes, corn, and sugarbeet) and traits (herbicide tolerance, insect protection) tested when compared to their unmodified counterparts.11 The researchers stated, however, that these results “do not mean that genetic modifications could not increase weediness or invasiveness of crop plants, but they do indicate that productive crops are unlikely to survive for long outside cultivation.” It is therefore important, as regulations require, to evaluate individual GM crops on a case-by-case basis.

Direct effects on non-target organisms

In May 1999, it was reported that pollen from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-insect resistant corn had a negative impact on Monarch butterfly larvae. This report raised concerns and questions about potential risks to Monarchs and perhaps other non-target organisms. Some scientists, however, urged caution over the interpretation of the study because it reflects a different situation than that in the environment. The author indicated “Our study was conducted in the lab and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to Monarch populations in the field solely on these initial results.”

A report from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that the “data provide a weight of evidence indicating no unreasonable adverse effects of Bt proteins expressed in plants to non-target wildlife” Furthermore, a collaborative research effort by North American scientists has concluded that in most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density that would be encountered in the field.13

Development of insect resistance

Another concern over the use of Bt crops is that it will lead to the development of insect resistance to Bt. Insect resistance management plans have been developed by government, industry, and scientists to address this issue.

These plans include a requirement that every field of insect-resistant crops must have an associated refuge of non-GM crops in order for the insects to develop without selection to the insect resistant varieties.

Additional resistance management practices are also being developed by scientists all over the world....

Full article at Bio-Central Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:46 PM | Permalink

The Council for Biotechnology Information

Excerpt...

Two-thirds of consumers would buy biotech food made from crops that required less spraying.

A majority of U.S. consumers would likely buy food developed using biotechnology that tastes better or fresher or was made from crops that required less pesticide spraying, according to a new survey by the International Food Information Council (IFIC).

Two-thirds (66 percent) of respondents said they would likely "buy a variety of produce … if it had been modified by biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and required fewer pesticide applications," according to the survey released March 8, 2004, by IFIC, an organization that communicates about a wide range of food issues. And 54 percent said they would likely buy genetically enhanced produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if they tasted better or fresher.

The survey — the ninth conducted by IFIC since 1997 — showed that U.S. consumer attitudes toward biotechnology have remained fairly stable in recent years.

For example, the most recent survey showed that 40 percent of respondents said genetically enhanced cooking oil with reduced levels of saturated fat would have a positive effect on their decision to buy the oil — the same as in May 2000. Only 15 percent said it would have a negative effect in the most recent survey, compared with 18 percent in 2000.

Asked if biotechnology will provide benefits for you or your family within the next five years, 59 percent of respondents said yes in the most recent survey — the same as in May 2000.

The survey also asked if consumers had taken any action to avoid biotech foods or ingredients in the past few months because of concerns about food developed using biotechnology. Ninety-four percent said they hadn't taken any action while only 1 percent said they had.

In addition, 80 percent of consumers said they couldn't think of any information "not currently included on food labels" that they would like to see, while only 1 percent said they would like to see biotech food labeled....

Full article at The Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:38 PM | Permalink

The Council for Biotechnology Information

Excerpt...

...Studies show biotech corn is less susceptible to harmful molds.

Biotech corn may actually be to safer eat than conventional varieties — particularly in some developing countries — because it has built-in protection against insect pests that burrow into corn kernels, creating conditions for a mold to develop that can be harmful to both humans and animals.

"There is now clear evidence that food and feed products from Bt corn are often safer than the corresponding products from conventional corn because of lower levels of the mycotoxin fumonisin," according to a November 2003 report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

Fumonisin is produced when insects burrow into corn stalks and kernels, allowing fungi to enter and produce harmful mold. While mycotoxin levels are closely monitored in the industrial world, they are not monitored in many developing countries in the tropics where the threat from fungal infection is greatest.

"Minimizing insect damage through Bt corn has significantly reduced concentrations of fumonisin in food and feed," said Clive James, the author of the report from ISAAA, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to help alleviate hunger and poverty by sharing crop biotechnology applications. "This is a major benefit in developing countries where levels of the harmful mold are higher in food and feed and where corn is directly used as food by a significant portion of the population."

A number of independent studies have confirmed that Bt corn — enhanced with a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that wards off insect pests — has significantly lower fumonisin levels:

A 2000 study by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service found that fumonisin levels were between 30 and 40 times lower in Illinois Bt corn fields than in those planted with traditional varieties.

A 1999 Iowa State University study found a "significant" lowering of fumonisin levels in Bt corn over conventional varieties. "Our results indicate that under some conditions, genetic engineering of maize for insect resistance may enhance its safety for animal and human consumption," said the study's lead researcher, Gary Munkvold."Lower mycotoxin concentrations in Bt corn hybrids clearly represent a benefit to consumers."

"Bt corn is protected against damage from corn borers and consistently has 90 percent less fumonisin than conventional plants," said a 2000 report from the American Academy of Microbiology titled, 100 Years of Bacillus Thuringiensis: A Critical Scientific Assessment. "Thus, protection against insect damage and subsequent fungal infection may have important health implications for consumers and farm animals exposed to fumonisins in their diet."

High levels of fumonisin can cause liver and kidney damage in many animals, and fumonisin is believed to be a human carcinogen. While human food safety from high fumonisin levels are generally not considered a major problem in the developed world, it is a more serious health issue where insect infestation levels are high and corn is a staple for human survival.

In Kenya, for example, where the normal corn intake is about 400 grams per day, eating corn with fumonisin contamination of just 1 part per million (ppm) would mean exceeding the provisional maximum total daily intake (PMTDI) for fumonisin by three times.

"Given that maize (corn) contamination of 1 ppm is not uncommon, there are risks for people consuming high amounts of contaminated maize," according to the ISAAA report. 8 The recommended guidance level for fumonisin in corn is 2 ppm.

To date, South Africa is the only country in Africa to approve the commercial planting of Bt corn, and the Philippines is the only country in Asia to do so. In Europe, Spanish farmers have been planting Bt corn for several years as have farmers in the United States and Canada....

Full article at The Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:17 PM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information

Excerpt…

Look no further than to America's recent past to discover the long-time link between chronic disease and food.

As recently as the 1920s, pellagra — which caused scaly skin, intestinal distress, depression and death in about 5 percent of cases — devastated areas of the South. It killed thousands and afflicted hundreds of thousands more. For the first third of the 20th century, there were many theories about the cause of the disease, including poor sanitation, rotten corn and that it was a virus transmitted by human contact.

But it wasn't until 1937 that a University of Wisconsin researcher discovered that the disease was actually caused by a deficiency in a B complex vitamin, nicotinic acid, which later became known as niacin.

During World War II, white bread was enriched with niacin, which so thoroughly eliminated any remaining traces of pellagra that the disease is now sometimes referred to as "The Forgotten Plague."

Today, some believe that what the fortification of foods did to vastly improve health in the 20th century, biotechnology can do for the 21st century.

"Biotechnology can help improve the health-promoting profile of food by increasing levels of desirable substances and decreasing allergens and other factors that increase the risk of disease," Catherine Woteki, who has a Ph.D. in human nutrition and is also dean of Iowa State University's College of Agriculture, told participants at a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

Woteki says it's believed that dietary factors and the lack of physical activity in adulthood are related to about a third of all cancer deaths in the United States, as well as many other chronic diseases.

"Scientific evidence has shown diet to be a factor in many of the leading causes of death in the United States, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes and kidney disease," she says.

But what the exact link is between diet and many of these diseases is still not fully understood.

Sterols and polyphenols, micronutrients that are found in red wines as well as in fruits and vegetables, for example, are believed to help prevent heart disease. There are also many other substances in fruits and vegetables that are believed to stave off disease.

Once the role of these disease-preventing micronutrients is fully understood, plant biotechnology can be used to boost their levels in food to improve health — just as the fortification of food did in the 20th century.

"To the extent that we can use various techniques to improve the health-promoting quality of the food supply, we can be making a dent in the occurrence of these diseases," says Woteki.

Although there are currently no such biotech products on the market, Woteki says golden rice, which is enhanced with beta carotene that stimulates the production of vitamin A, is one of the best examples of a health-promoting biotech food in development. Every year, between 250,000 and 500,000 go blind because of vitamin A deficiency, according to the World Health Organization. And about half of these children die within a year of losing their sight.

There are many other health-promoting foods in development, including:

Tomatoes with increased levels of lycopene, which is believed to lower the risk of breast and prostate cancers, as well as coronary heart disease.

Soybean, corn and canola oils that are enhanced with nearly 10 times the levels of healthy vitamin E, which is believed to improve the body's immune system, lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and some cancers, and slow the progress of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's.

Lettuce that is enhanced with resveratrol, the ingredient in red grapes and red wine that is believed to help prevent heart disease and cancer by increasing levels of good cholesterol and lowering levels of bad cholesterol.

The link between food and health, of course, is nothing new. Hippocrates, the Greek physician who's known as the father of modern medicine, wrote in 400 B.C., "Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food."

Back in 1753, James Lind reported that two oranges and a lemon a day would cure scurvy, although it took the British Navy nearly half a decade to adopt his recommendations.

More recently, adding vitamin D to milk has helped prevent rickets (a childhood disease, caused by vitamin D deficiency and inadequate exposure to sunlight, characterized by a softening of the bones), adding thiamin to flour has helped eliminate beriberi (a nerve disease triggered by a vitamin B deficiency that causes paralysis in the limbs) and adding folic acid to cereals has helped prevent spina bifida, a birth defect often causing neurological impairment.

"Fortifying or supplementing the food supply with healthful substances has a proven track record," says Woteki, emphasizing that biotechnology is just one of several approaches to improving diets even more....

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:47 PM | Permalink

Here's an excerpt from a great article on the benefits of genetic engineering published in Science Daily.

Science Daily — Bananas have emerged as the best candidate to deliver a bite-sized vaccine for hepatitis B virus (HBV) to millions of people in developing countries, according to an article scheduled for the June 1 issue of ACS' Biotechnology Progress, a bi-monthly journal co-published with the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

In the article, India's V. A. Bapat and colleagues update and review worldwide research on efforts to genetically engineer plants as biofactories for the production of vaccines. They focus on transferring genes to produce HBV vaccine, noting that there already are 350 million carriers of hepatitis B worldwide, with 1 million new cases annually. An estimated 75 million -100 million of those infected individuals may die from liver cirrhosis or liver cancer as a result, the article adds.

The authors explain that plant-based production of an oral hepatitis B vaccine has economic and other advantages over the existing injectable vaccine. Researchers so far have successfully engineered several plants -- including banana, potato, lettuce, carrot, and tobacco -- to produce HBV vaccines….

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Chemical Society.

Full article at Science Daily.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:39 PM | Permalink

United Press International

This is an excerpt from a great article about genetically modified foods that was posted at United Press International.

ROME, May. 1 (UPI) -- Italian scientists have developed a tomato that can thrive on less than one-quarter of the water common varieties need.

The tomatoes are grown without soil in a solution of water and nutrients, Massimo Iannetta of the ENEA Research Institute told the Italian news agency Ansa. Each plant needs about four gallons of water, compared to 18.5 gallons for a conventionally grown tomato.

ENEA is developing drought-resistant strains of other types of plants, including potatoes and wheat. The institute has just completed a test in the Mexican desert.

"We tried growing selected varieties of cereals and vegetables, and the results were excellent," he said....

...Genetically engineered plants cannot be sold or grown legally in Italy, although the institute is experimenting with some grown in the laboratory.

Full article at United Press International.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:26 PM | Permalink

Capital Press
Don Curlee
May 4, 2007

This is an excerpt from a great article published by Capital Press about why it's important for producers to share with consumers the benefits of genetically modified foods and other biotechnology products, as well as why they are used.

In our free market economy consumers express their preferences to producers of food and other products very surely if not always swiftly. Some products grow moldy on retail shelves before producers get the message that consumers don't want them.

Instant advice to the rescue. Groups that pretend to know what consumers want or should want have proliferated in recent years. Do they really know, or are they pushing an agenda?

University of California food technologist Christine Bruhn undertook to answer that question when she spoke to the annual meeting of Western United Dairymen in Bakersfield in March. Dairymen have been a prime target of quasi-consumer groups.

She addressed biotechnology issues and consumer response to them. Her research shows that about 80 percent of consumers polled believe that biotechnological applications to food or milk-producing animals are positive or have no effect. Less than 20 percent believe they have negative outcomes, and a barely measurable percentage had no opinion.

When consumers know that a product is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, she has found that 45 percent of them don't hesitate to buy it, even if it is enhanced through genetic engineering. So-called consumer and watchdog groups that decry GE products and advances such as cloning might be leading consumers and producers astray.

Bruhn advised the milk producers to point out the benefits of new technology to consumers as well as to producers. "If you ... say you are not going to use a product, that reinforces the negative," she said. She told them it is better to stand up and say why new technology is used.

One group of milk producers recently answered the request by Safeway stores for milk from cows that have been isolated from the hormone rBST. The producer group said it is glad to supply the special edition milk at a premium, just as it would if the request were for milk with little blue dots in it. An announcement like that is right in line with Bruhn's advice.

Even though her research shows that 20 percent of food consumers are not at all likely to buy food enhanced through GE methods even if approved by the FDA, 57 percent are somewhat or very likely to purchase it....

Don Curlee is a veteran ag publications editor and freelancer who writes on a variety of farm-related topics from Clovis, Calif.

Full article at Capital Press.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

GMO Compass
May 3, 2007

Excerpt...

New surveys suggest that fewer farmers in UK and Germany are opposed to planting genetically modified crops than is often believed. 47 percent of surveyed farmers in the UK and 33 percent in Germany are willing to cultivate GM plants. However, 16 percent in the UK and 29 percent in Germany reject the concept of GM crops, and many farmers are still undecided.

In the UK, the British Grassland Society polled its members on their attitude towards GM crops. Surprisingly, strict opposition to GMOs was expressed by responding farmers among only 16 percent, the half of whom are producing organic goods. While 47 percent generally favour GM crops, as many as three-quarters stated that they would grow GM plants if consumers were willing to buy them. Jessica Buss, director of the society, commented: "We were surprised that only one-in-eight Grassland farmers responding said that they would never grow GM forage crops."…

Full article at GMO Compass .

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:59 PM | Permalink

Salon.com
Andrew Leonard

Excerpt...

On March 28, How the World Works referenced a Der Spiegel article citing data from one relatively small study that offered shallow support for thinking there might be a connection between the spread of genetically modified Bt corn and the widely publicized mass death of honeybees around the world (referred to as "colony collapse disorder").

Pro-agricultural biotechnology journalists like Reason magazine's Ron Bailey quickly scoffed at the theory, and in fact, eagerly used its flimsiness to bash anti-GM activists who are probably over-eager to seize upon any scientific finding that supports their own fierce opposition to genetically modified crops. But the long-established bias of the pro-GM boosters made their own dismissals equally suspect.

The New York Times reporter, Alexei Barrionuevo, responsible for bringing colony collapse disorder (CCD) to national attention didn't do a whole lot to assuage fears when, in a follow-up piece looking at the scientific rush to figure out what was going on, he devoted one sentence to the topic: "[Scientists] have also set aside for now the possibility that the cause could be bees feeding from a commonly used genetically modified crop, Bt corn, because the symptoms typically associated with toxins, such as blood poisoning, are not showing up in the affected bees."

But now comes the most convincing argument I've seen so far, courtesy of the American Farm magazine (with thanks for the tip to the very pro-GM GMO Pundit) and Galen P. Dively, a professor at the University of Maryland who specializes in integrated pest management. Dively sums up the available research -- and there has been quite a bit on the possible effects of Bt corn on honeybees -- and states that "while this possibility has not been ruled out, the weight of evidence based on a multitude of studies argues strongly that the current use of Bt corn is not associated with CCD."

But he concludes:

Although there is no evidence thus far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt endotoxins on honey bees, insecticidal products expressed by other transgenes in crops may need extended field testing on a case-by-case basis to assess the longer term consequences of sub-lethal changes in colonies and subtle modifications in bee behavior....

...Does that put professor Dively in the "everything is all right with GM crops" camp? Perhaps. But if a campaign against GM crops is going to be based on the evidence, then so far, the disappearance of the world's honeybees might not be the best fodder for the crusade.

Full article at Salon.com ">Salon.com.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:37 PM