FBAE Blog

Fin24
July 31, 2007

Here's an excerpt from an article published by Fin24 about South Africa's resistance to labeling gm crops…

Cape Town - South Africa is resisting labeling its genetically modified foods because of fears it could raise prices and make food less available for consumers, a senior health official told parliament on Tuesday.

The country, Africa's economic powerhouse and one of the few on the continent to accept genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are popularly known, does not currently require that the modified foods be labeled.

But pressure is growing on the government to consider doing so amid a growing debate over their use. Supporters say that GMOs could help solve many of Africa's food problems, while critics say they are an experiment that puts millions at risk.

"If we had to label the foodstuffs, we have to determine the costs and benefits of it. Would it increase food prices and, therefore, decrease the accessibility of that foodstuff for a vast majority of people," Renusha Chanda, an assistant director in South Africa's department of health, said in a presentation.

However, Chanda added that the government believed that all GMOs currently on the South African market were safe, making labels unnecessary.

The government is considering changing GMO legislation and has heard appeals from environmentalists and farmers for tighter controls to halt the import and creation of such crops.

Zimbabwe, Zambia and several other nations have banned GMOs, saying that they could mix with indigenous crops.

Chanda said that more studies and research were needed to determine the costs and benefits of labeling GMOs. They are only mandatory when they include genes from fish, animals and humans or when they differ substantially in nutritional content.

…

Full article at Fin24.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:45 AM | Permalink

Innovations-Report
July 30, 2007

Excerpt…

Scientists at the University of Oxford have paved the way for bigger and better quality maize crops by identifying the genetic processes that determine seed development through agricultural biotechnology.

Plant scientists have known for some time that genes from the maternal plant control seed development, but they have not known quite how. The Oxford research, supported by the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and highlighted in the new issue of BBSRC Business, has found at least part of the answer.

Working in collaboration with researchers in Germany and France, Professor Hugh Dickinson's team found that only the maternal copy of a key gene responsible for delivering nutrients is active. The copy derived from the paternal plant is switched off. This gene encodes a potential signalling molecule found in the endosperm - a placenta-like layer that nourishes the developing grain, which is involved in 'calling' for nutrients from the mother plant, and so triggers an increased flow of resources. Similar mechanisms can almost certainly be expected in other cereals, and with cereal grain being a staple food across the world, the potential to harness this science to improve yields is clear.

Prof. Dickinson explains: "By understanding the complex level of gene control in the developing grain, we have opened up opportunities in improving crop yield.

"The knowledge and molecular tools needed to harness these natural genetic processes are now available to plant breeders and could help them improve commercial varieties further. For example, they can better understand how to successfully cross-breed to produce higher quality crops. The cereal grain is a staple food of the world's population: with the changing climate and growing population, the need for sustainable agriculture is increasingly pressing."

…

Full article at Innovations-Report.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:41 AM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 30, 2007

Excerpt…

Farmers of all types — from an Amish tobacco farmer in the United States to a corn farmer in the Philippines — continue to embrace biotech crops because they help improve living standards.

Amish farmer Daniel Dienner says he earns nearly twice as much planting a biotech nicotine-free tobacco as he would planting a conventional variety — $1.50 per pound vs. 80 cents per pound. Meanwhile, Filipino farmer Edwin Paraluman says he earns about 50 percent more by planting biotech corn than he did growing conventional varieties.

Their experience is shared by farmers from around the world. Perhaps the most telling statistic about the economic benefits of biotech crops is how quickly these global farmers have embraced the new technology.

An estimated 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries now plant biotech crops — up from 7 million farmers in 18 countries in 2003, according to the nonprofit International Association for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

"This is an unwavering and resolute vote of confidence in the technology from … farmers, who are masters in risk aversion and have consistently chosen to plant an increasing hectarage of biotech crops year after year after year," wrote ISAAA chair Clive James in a January 2005 report, "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004."2

Farmers have adopted the technology so quickly for several simple reasons: Biotech crops improve yields, cut costs and reduce spraying. Not only do these benefits improve farmers' bottom lines, but they also save time — improving their quality of life by giving them more time to spend with their families and to pursue other activities.

A study by a University of Minnesota food and trade policy analyst reported that the global commercial value of biotech crops in the 2003-2004 crop year was US$44 billion — a value that is expected to grow to $210 billion by the end of the decade.

"As far as complex traits such as drought tolerance are concerned, Australian breeders are reliant on the important work of Syria-based Australian researcher Dr Ken Street and his colleagues, who sample genetic resources from the world's original cereal crops for use in breeding," he said.

Dr Street, a scientist with the International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), told today's Agriculture Australia conference that genetic resources were vital for economic sustainability and food security – "a major understated threat from global warming".

"This is a survival issue: for many people around the world it means avoiding starvation; for farmers in countries like Australia it means economic survival," he said.

…

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:25 AM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
July 30, 2007

Here's an excerpt from an article about a new Australian publication intended to inform each side of the biotechnology debate of recent biotechnology advances. The report states that millions of farmers around the world use gm crops…

There are 10 million farmers around the world using genetically modified crops, according to a new publication released by Australia's peak grains research body aimed at informing the contentious biotechnology debate.

Launched at the Agriculture Australia conference in Melbourne, FutureCrop is from the the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

It explores recent biotechnology advances and investigates developments overseas, where more than 10 million farmers have found ready markets for genetically modified crops.

GRDC managing director, Peter Reading, said his organisation had closely monitored the biotechnology debate and was aware of industry positions that favour and oppose GM.

"FutureCrop provides a snapshot of arguments that define the GM debate, and demonstrates that both GM and conventional non-GM pathways have important roles to ensure our grains industries – and their communities – remain viable," Mr Reading said.

Using GM and non-GM processes, biotechnology provides opportunities to produce higher-value crops with health and industrial benefits, and to mitigate economic and environmental challenges such as climate change.

"Biotechnology has equipped breeders with molecular markers to identify desired gene combinations early in the breeding cycle, making crop improvements through conventional breeding more efficient," Mr Reading said.

"It also has produced the tools to potentially further enhance breeding through genetic modification by broadening the range of traits that are available to breeders and by offering these traits in a format that can be readily implemented."

However, while Australian breeders have embraced molecular markers as a routine breeding tool, Mr Reading said they were not making use of GM technologies because there is no clear path to market in Australia for GM.

…

Full article at Checkbiotech.

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

Checkbiotech
Hans Lombard
July 27, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from a great article by Hans Lombard on agricultural biotechnology in Africa…

AFRICAN scientists and agricultural organizations yesterday welcomed the clarification by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) that the organization "supports the use of science and technology" – including genetic modification (GM) technology – "to aid Africa's smallholder farmers in their urgent efforts to end widespread poverty and hunger.”

Five major organizations working in agriculture – AfricaBio, the Africa Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF), Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (AHBFI), Biotechnology-Ecology Research and Outreach Consortium (BioEROC) and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) – said the AGRA position is consistent with that of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in its report on biotechnology which states that “regional economic integration in Africa should embody the building and accumulation of capacities to harness and govern modern biotechnology.”

AGRA says in a statement that its mission “is not to advocate for or against the use of genetic engineering. We believe it is up to governments, in partnership with their citizens, to use the best knowledge available to put in place policies and regulations that will guide the safe development and acceptable use of new technologies, as several African countries are in the process of doing.”

The Alliance said its mission is to use the wide variety of tools and techniques available now to make a dramatic difference for Africa’s smallholder farmers as quickly as possible. It said it has chosen to focus on conventional breeding techniques but would “consider funding the development and deployment of such new (GM) technologies only after African governments have endorsed and provided for their safe use.”

The Alliance clarified that conventional breeding was its starting point, however it pointed out that since science and society are continually evolving, and it does preclude future funding for genetic engineering as an approach to crop variety improvement when it is the most appropriate tool to address an important need of small-scale farmers.

Last week, AGRA’s new president, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was reported as having ruled out the GM technology as one of AGRA’s strategies in the fight against poverty and hunger in Africa. Anti-GM organizations hailed his statement as a sign that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – a funding partner to AGRA – has changed its strategy on the GM technology.

South African-based AfricaBio President, Prof. Diran Makinde, said “African agricultural organizations welcome the clarification from AGRA. We cannot fault their strategy and we agree that conventional plant breeding has not received sufficient attention or investment in Africa, leaving untapped the inherent genetic potential available in African crops.”

Africa Harvest CEO, Dr. Florence Wambugu, said “Africa’s leaders had asked African scientists to come up with a consensus position on this new technology. The NEPAD report clearly states that the continent must have the freedom to innovate. Many countries and regional organizations are busy domesticating the NEPAD Biotechnology Policy and will resist any effort to erode their freedom to innovate….”

Full article at Checkbiotech.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 7:48 AM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 27, 2007

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, 4 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….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:05 AM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 27, 2007

Excerpt…

Farmers now have new tools to help prevent soil erosion and help keep our rivers clean.

A tractor pulling a plow across a field is an enduring image of American agriculture. For generations, farmers have plowed their fields to prepare the soil for planting, and to fight harmful weeds and insects. But plowing can also expose topsoil to erosion. And, as topsoil is blown off by wind or washed away by rain, crops are robbed of nutrients they need.

"As topsoil is blown off by the wind or washed away by the rain, crops are robbed of nutrients they need."

What is more, eroded topsoil can end up in local rivers and streams where it settles to the bottom and clouds the water. Fish, mussels, and other aquatic wildlife and vegetation suffer when water is filled with sediment. Some species of fish have even become endangered from soil runoff because, when sediment is thick, they are unable to lay their eggs. While some river species suffer from the soil runoff, other plants like algae benefit from the fertilizer in the soil so much that they can overwhelm the natural ecosystem.

Over the years, farmers have made great strides in reducing topsoil erosion through the use of windbreaks and waterways, as well as by plowing less frequently. Today, farmers have a new tool to help save topsoil. It is called biotechnology. Some biotech crops are now making it easier and more cost-effective for farmers to adopt one of the best methods for conserving the soil -- reduced plowing.

In fact, farmers have planted biotech crops that fight weeds and insects on millions of acres. These crops have built-in defenses against weeds and insects, so in some cases - like biotech cotton and soybeans - less plowing is required. In fact, some farmers have reduced plowing from as often as eight times a year to one or two times a year, dramatically decreasing soil erosion….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:00 AM | Permalink

Truth About Trade & Technology
Dean Kleckner
July 27, 2007

Excerpt…

The day after President Bush presented Norman Borlaug with the Congressional Gold Medal, the recipient of our country’s highest civilian honor described the great challenges that await agriculture in the 21st century: “persistent poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries, changing global climate patterns, and the use of food crops to produce biofuels.”

He might have added another category: meddlesome former United Nations officials who issue confusing statements.

That’s because Kofi Annan, who stepped down as the UN’s secretary general at the start of this year, is busy telling African farmers that they don’t need biotechnology. Or so it would seem.

Annan is now Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and last week he appeared to take a stand against the Gene Revolution: “We in [AGRA] will not incorporate GMOs in our programs,” he said.

A newspaper in Kenya responded to his announcement with this headline: “Annan rules out use of GMOs in the war on hunger in Africa.”

But did Annan really mean what he was quoted as saying? Some have suggested that he didn’t--and that he was merely responding to the reality that African farmers can’t afford genetically enhanced seeds and that some African governments lack the regulatory mechanisms to take proper advantage of the latest agricultural technology.

If Annan was misquoted or misinterpreted, then he has my sympathy: As we all know, the media sometimes gets the facts wrong.

Yet there’s one man who can clear up this mix-up--assuming it really is a mix-up--and that’s Kofi Annan.

So far, I haven’t heard him issue the full-throated endorsement of GM crops that a leader truly committed to the future of African farming would deliver.

Annan should take his cue from the father of the Green Revolution. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, Borlaug hailed “the advent of a Gene Revolution that stands to equal, if not exceed, the Green Revolution of the 20th century.”

As it happens, AGRA has many good ideas. They recommend an improved infrastructure for Africa, better market opportunities for its farmers, the nurturing of native-born scientists, and smarter government policies – all good common sense suggestions. These strategies are what prompted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation to invest $150 million in its program last year.

What African farmers need more than anything else, however, are better seeds. AGRA’s own website says that “at the most fundamental level,” agricultural progress on the continent “starts with improved crop varieties for larger, more diverse, and more reliable harvests.”

In the 21st century, that means unfettered access to GM seeds while continuing to work with old technologies.

“Agricultural science and technology, including the indispensable tools of biotechnology, will be critical to meeting the growing demands for food, feed, fiber, and biofuels,” says Borlaug.

Biotech crops are not a cure-all for the world’s agricultural dilemmas, to say nothing of the especially thorny problems that farmers face on the world’s most desperate continent. But it would certainly help Africa if scientists could apply their intelligence to improving beans, peanuts, tropical roots, bananas, and tubers with biotechnology.

The biotech option, without question, has helped farmers all over the world--so much so, in fact, that they’ve planted and harvested well over one and a half billion acres of GM crops. There’s no special reason why farmers in Africa should not participate as equal partners in the Gene Revolution, except for figures like Annan telling them not to bother.

The beauty of the Gene Revolution is that farmers have chosen it--they know that genetically-enhanced crops make sense, and so they’ve embraced them very rapidly, much as a previous generation of farmers embraced the techniques of the Green Revolution, albeit a bit more slowly.

Why anybody would want to deny African farmers the choice of achieving similar benefits is beyond me….

Full article at Truth About Trade & Technology.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:43 AM | Permalink

For those of you subscribing to our web site through our RSS Feed, we have some news for you. We've recently moved over to Feedburner to better serve our visitors. You can reach this new feed by clicking the "Subscribe to RSS Feed" link on the right or by going to http://feeds.feedburner.com/FbaeBlogRssFeed. If you are currently subscribing to FBAE Blog, we ask that you move over to this new system.

Thank you.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:28 PM | Permalink

The University of Arkansas
July 26, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from a great article discussing plant biotechnology research being conducted by graduate student, Tameka Bailey, at The University of Arkansas.

Studying plants at molecular level allows graduate student to understand response to stressors, uncover gene.

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - A University of Arkansas graduate student is helping rice farmers grow better crops by studying the plant at its most fundamental molecular level.

Cell and molecular biology major Tameka Bailey's research focuses on a certain type of proteins and the molecular mechanisms that trigger rice's response to stressful conditions, such as drought, high salinity or a biological disease called rice blast. Understanding how plants respond to these stressors will help scientists and farmers develop better ways to grow rice in less than optimal conditions.

"The proteins have so much power in the cell, it's amazing," Bailey said. "They can change the whole fate of the plant."

Working with Yinong Yang, a former professor of plant pathology in the Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences who is now at Penn State University, Bailey uncovered the gene responsible for a molecular mechanism that helps regulate rice blast resistance through the production of ethylene, an organic gas found in nature. Bailey also studied proteins called mitogen-activated protein kinases. These proteins regulate the plants' response to external stimuli, such as drought or disease. The particular type of kinase Bailey studied is the last one in a cascade of kinases that convert signals from receptors into responses from the plant.

She found that these proteins regulate the plants' production of an acid called abscisic acid, which led to stress tolerance in drought and high salinity conditions, a trait that appears to be conserved in other types of plants. Bailey isolated and characterized these proteins, which are responsible for activating the plant's response to stress.

To give rice plants a boost in their ability to tolerate stressful conditions, Bailey used genetic engineering to create plants that would express a great deal of the protein. To do this, she inserted extra copies of the protein kinase DNA into the DNA of a rice plant. The transgenic rice plant then expressed an abundance of that particular protein. In contrast, Bailey produced transgenic plants where the protein kinase was suppressed to see how the plants responded to stress in the absence of the protein of interest. Her studies showed that the extra boost of protein kinases led to increased drought tolerance….

Full article at The University of Arkansas.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:13 AM | Permalink

MSNBC
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
July 30, 2007 Issue

Excerpt...

It's a trifecta much bigger and rarer than an Oscar, an Emmy and a Tony. Only five people in history have ever won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal: Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel ... and Norman Borlaug.

Norman who? Few news organizations covered last week's Congressional Gold Medal ceremony for Borlaug, which was presided over by President Bush and the leadership of the House and Senate. An elderly agronomist doesn't make news, even when he is widely credited with saving the lives of 1 billion human beings worldwide, more than one in seven people on the planet....

Read full article at MSNBC.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 3:35 AM | Permalink

Business Day
Douglas Southgate
July 25, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from a great article on agricultural biotechnology in Africa by Douglas Southgate…

WHEN the Green Revolution swept Asia after the mid-1960s with its high-yield seeds, fertilisers and other chemical inputs, and irrigation systems, hundreds of millions of people were saved from starvation. Africa cries out for such a revolution. The adoption of modern agricultural technology would go a long way towards helping the 200-million Africans who are malnourished.

Unfortunately, a coalition of environmental nongovernmental organizations, politicians and advocacy groups are conspiring to keep this nothing more than a pipe dream.

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa was established by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with the objective of improving agriculture in Africa, but its head, former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, said last week: “We in the alliance will not incorporate GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds known to them.” And Greenpeace claims that “chemical pesticides, fertilisers and hybrid seeds have destroyed wildlife and crop diversity, poisoned people and ruined the soil.”

It is true that much environmental damage occurred in the same period as the Green Revolution. But it had entirely different causes. Consider water resources. When farmers irrigate wastefully it is because the managers of public systems charge practically nothing for water. Moreover, these managers often provide subsidised electricity to farmers to run their pumps. The result: depleted underground aquifers and dry streams. Bad policy also contributes to the misuse of chemicals. In India, nitrogen is subsidised; other fertilisers are not. This leads to unbalanced fertilisation, which diminishes crop output.

Modern agricultural practices have environmental benefits. Chemicals and genetically modified varieties enhance yields, enabling more food to be produced on less land. As a result, wild habitats are saved. Had the Green Revolution not come along when it did, we would now be discussing tropical deforestation in Asia exclusively in the past tense. Without yield growth, the continent’s farmers would have cultivated every square metre of ground in a futile struggle to keep up with exploding food demand, driven by expanding populations and higher incomes. No more forests would be left to cut down.

New technologies are bringing other environmental benefits. Genetically modified varieties resist insects, thereby reducing the amount of pesticide required. Herbicide-resistant crops diminish the need for ploughing, a significant cause of soil erosion.

These technologies are now commonplace in southern Asia. But farming practices have changed little in Africa since the 1960s, and crop yields remain abysmal. Since human numbers are rising fast in many parts of the continent, agriculture is putting pressure on forests and other habitats. A Green Revolution could solve this problem….

Full article at Business Day.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 7:44 AM | Permalink

Genetic Modification Blog
July 25, 2007

Excerpt…

Genetic modification (GM) has come a long way since it first came out with the first genetically engineered human insulin in 1982 and the first GM tomato sometime during 1994. Right now, not only is the technology used primarily in agriculture to create better food crops. Genetic modification and biotechnology in general are already being applied in other fields such as pharmaceuticals. But it is primarily on the food sector that genetic modification has so far been able to gain a substantial foothold.

The initial success of the first GM tomato was generally accepted as the future for the biotechnology sector where developments have been ongoing in trying to create better crops through genetic modification. The next GM crops to come along were those made from corn, cotton and soybeans. But then came some controversial findings that came up showing some of the GM crops that have been introduced in the market may not be as safe as was once was believed. It certainly put a negative effect into the minds of a number of people.

The United States is considered as the world’s largest producer of genetically modified food crops with cultivating over two thirds of the annual GM crop produced worldwide. Included in the list of GM crops grown in the US are corn, soybeans, squash, canola and papaya. Argentina is considered as the next biggest producer of GM crops which consist mostly of GM soybeans. Canada also has a substantial acreage being used to cultivate GM crops, primarily that of canola. Other notable countries involved in the cultivation of GM crops include China, Brazil and South Africa. There are also other countries in Europe and Asia who are also beginning to increase acreage use for GM crops.

The list of GM crop growing countries seems to show that the biggest producers come from the Americas. No European country comes out as a major GM crop producer in the list. The reason for this may stem from the fact that there is a growing concern over the fact that some GM crops may still require further testing and study before they are to be introduced into the agricultural market for widespread use. Along with a number of not so promising findings concerning the probable effects of selected GM crops (not only on humans but in the environment as well) may have only tightened the resolve of some European countries to tighten up and even ban the cultivation of Gm crops….

Full article at Genetic Modification Blog.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 6:18 AM | Permalink

Des Moines Register
Norman Borlaug
July 25, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from a great article on agricultural biotechnology by Norman Borlaug…

Persistent poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries, changing global climatic patterns and the use of food crops to produce biofuels all pose new and unprecedented risks and opportunities for global agriculture in the years ahead.

Agricultural science and technology, including the indispensable tools of biotechnology, will be critical to meeting the growing demands for food, feed, fiber and biofuels. Plant breeders will be challenged to produce seeds that are equipped to better handle saline conditions, to resist disease, insects, droughts and waterlogging and to protect or increase yields, whether in distressed climates or the breadbaskets of the world. This flourishing new branch of science extends to food crops, fuels, fibers, livestock and even forest products.

Over the millennia, farmers have practiced bringing together the best characteristics of individual plants and animals to make more vigorous and productive offspring. The early domesticators of our food and animal species - most likely Neolithic women - were also the first biotechnologists, as they selected more adaptable, durable and resilient plants and animals to provide food, clothing and shelter.

In the late 19th century, the foundations for science-based crop improvement were laid by Darwin, Mendel, Pasteur and others. Pioneering plant breeders applied systematic cross-breeding of plants and selection of offspring with desirable traits to develop hybrid corn, the first great, practical, science-based product of genetic engineering.

Early crossbreeding experiments to select desirable characteristics took years to reach the desired developmental state of a plant or animal. Today, with the tools of biotechnology, such as molecular and marker-assisted selection, the ends are reached in a more organized and accelerated way. The result has been the advent of a "Gene" Revolution that stands to equal, if not exceed, the Green Revolution of the 20th century….

Full article at Des Moines Register.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:53 AM | Permalink

Checkbiotech
July 24, 2007

Excerpt…

Twenty-five percent of the undernourished people in the developing world are located in sub-Saharan Africa; and according to FAO, approximately 35 percent of the population in 14 countries in the region are chronically undernourished. However, efforts to reduce hunger in this region have been hampered by a shortage of arable land, inadequate rainfall, low soil fertility and the devastating effects of plant pests and diseases.

"I've been saddened. I've gotten frustrated at the levels of hunger, levels of food insecurity on this continent, food crises one after another," says The Honorable Ruth Oniang'o - a member of the Parliament of Kenya and Professor of Food Science and Nutrition at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology - in an exclusive video interview and podcast discussing the need for food biotechnology in Africa. "We have not always been food insecure. I think what has happened is we have not kept up with the world events, with the technologies. And I don't know of any country, which developed without using science and technology."

Increasing or intensifying food production is key to reducing hunger in sub-Saharan Africa, where 50-75 percent of the population and labor force is engaged in agriculture. "And so I believe that it is incumbent on our government and on our scientists to bring a technology, which can address a small-scale farmer," says Oniang'o, who is also founder and executive director of Rural Outreach Program - a not-for-profit organization that undertakes development activities aimed at improving the livelihoods of the rural poor in Kenya, more than 55 percent of whom live below the poverty line.

"They need different kinds of information, and I believe that science has now come up with this technology - biotechnology. I'm not saying it's going to be a magic bullet, but surely it should be one of the major approaches to use," Oniang'o continues.

Using food biotechnology, researchers can provide protection against plant pests and diseases through seed - requiring small-scale farmers to use few - if any - additional inputs or machinery. "And, we already have situations where we know this is working. In South Africa, I'm aware and I've been there - it is working," continues Oniang'o. "You know, when we're hungry, we actually import maize from South Africa. So for us to sit here telling ourselves - oh, we don't want biotech food, and we can't bring this to our farmers - it is not right."

Biotech varieties of cotton, corn and soy are approved for commercial planting and account for approximately 92 percent of South Africa's cotton, 29 percent of corn and 59 percent of soybeans. While South Africa is currently the only country with commercial plantings of food biotechnology crops, nine countries have conducted field trials in Africa including Burkina Faso, Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. An additional 11 countries are engaged in food biotechnology research and development….

Full article at Checkbiotech.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 7:33 AM | Permalink

The Birmingham News
Kent Faulk
News staff writer
July 24, 2007

Here’s an excerpt from a great article on GM crops by Kent Faulk of The Birmingham News…

When the rain stops falling, Alabama farmers have few options to keep their crops alive until the weather changes - find a way to irrigate or pray.

Scientists aim to give farmers a little more breathing room in the future by breeding or genetically altering plants so that they need less water while producing the same amount of crops or more.

"It really doesn't matter whether you're a cotton farmer in Alabama or a dry land corn farmer in South Dakota," said Robb Fraley, chief technology officer at Monsanto. "Everybody is interested in drought tolerance because just about every geography every three or four years faces some type of drought or water stress."

For example, Monsanto spends more than $2 million a day on breeding and genetic research to develop drought-tolerant plants, improve the quality of plants, or make crops less susceptible to weeds and insects.

Several hundred people at the St. Louis-based company work on drought-tolerance alone, company officials said.

Monsanto has done early testing on genetically engineered corn and cotton, two of Alabama's biggest crops.

Some varieties of corn tested have shown 10 percent to 15 percent higher yields compared to standard corn exposed to the same levels of water, Fraley said. "That's a huge economic advantage," he said.

Mark Lawson, corn yield and stress lead for the company, said he hopes the company will have a product to offer farmers soon after 2010.

A drought-tolerant cottonseed may be available between 2016 and 2018 or so, said Fred Perlak, director of cotton technology for Monsanto. He said company researchers are aiming to develop cotton plants that will produce as much cotton as traditional plants but with 20 percent less water.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Research Service in Tifton, Ga., also is working to develop drought-tolerant peanuts through traditional breeding….

Full article at The Birmingham News.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 7:22 AM | Permalink

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
July 13, 2007

Here’s an article by C Kameswara Rao on plant biotechnology.

Excerpt…

Nitrogen plays a very crucial role in the life of organisms. An innumerable number of nitrogen compounds are formed and utilized endlessly in metabolic processes.

Nitrates are an integral part of the nitrogen cycle in our environment. Nitrates form from fertilizers, decaying plants, farm yard manure and other organic residues and are a common component of water and vegetarian food. Excessive use of natural or synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers and/or use of sewage water for crop irrigation lead to an accumulation of nitrates, particularly in the leaves. Nitrates are also byproducts of animal or human waste. Rain or irrigation water removes nitrates into water sources.

Nitrate concentration is an indicator of food and water quality. One part of nitrate per a million parts of water is considered as the safe limit. Elevated nitrate levels in food and water are matters for concern, because plasma nitrate can interfere with blood-oxygen levels, leading to methemoglobinemia and gastric cancer.

Methaemoglobinaemia arises out of the excessive conversion of haemoglobin (containing ferrous iron) to methaemoglobin (containing ferric iron), which is incapable of binding and carrying oxygen.

Methaemoglobinaemia was reported in all age groups consequent upon high nitrate ingestion. However, infants and those above 45 years of age are most susceptible to nitrate poisoning.

The causes, symptoms and treatment of methaemoglobinaemia are well studied. While methaemoglobinaemia may be due to anaemia, and cardiac or pulmonary disease, it is more often due to high concentrations of chemical contaminants in food or water. Nitrates and nitrites are an important cause for methaemoglobinaemia, aggravated by congenital deficiencies of the enzyme nitrate reductase that effectively lowers nitrate concentrations. Methaemoglobinaemia on account of chemical poisoning cannot be reversed by oxygen administration, unlike in cardiac and pulmonary disorders.

The blood sample of a patient with over 15 per cent of methaemoglobin has a chocolate brown colour which does not change when exposed to air. A visible symptom of methaemoglobinaemia is cyanosis, a grayish-blue colour in people, even when about 10 per cent of total haemoglobin was affected. Other symptoms are nausea, headache, weakness, abnormally rapid heart beat (tachycardia), breathlessness (dyspnoea), chest pain, and mental changes, which progressively worsen as concentrations of methaemoglobin increase. Methaemoglobin concentrations of about 50 per cent result in depression of the central nervous system, while at more than 70 per cent life is threatened.

Identification of offending agent and prevention of further exposure alone are usually adequate for mild cases methaemoglobinaemia. Methylene blue (1 to 2 mg/kg body weight) is the specific antidote for methaemoglobinaemia, but is not effective in ruminants and does not help in respiratory distress. There is no specific antidote for animals. Proper grazing management is the only means.

Excess quantities of nitrates are converted in the mammalian digestive system to nitrite. Nitrites are transformed into Nitro-compounds, many of which, such as the nitrosamines, adversely affect metabolic processes and so are health hazard. Two other nitro-compounds derived from propionic acid, NPA and NPOH, affect respiratory enzymes such as succinate dehydrogenase. Miserotoxin and nitrotoxin are derivatives of NPA, which enhance methane production in ruminants. The quantity of toxic nitro-compounds can be estimated indirectly through an estimate of nitrites.

The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food (ECSCF) fixed the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of nitrate ion by people at 3.65 mg/ kg body wt/day. Sheep and cattle may tolerate four or five times this level.

Toxicity of nitrate related compounds causes two syndromes. The Acute State (syndrome) is when a single very high dose was consumed leading to rapid onset of symptoms such as loss in co-ordination, distress, laboured breathing, excitability, cyanosis, muscular weakness, and collapse leading to death, in a few hours to one day after ingestion. Sheep are very susceptible. The Chronic State (syndrome) results from the consumption of several sub-lethal doses over a long period of time, cumulatively reaching hazardous concentrations leading to weight loss, nasal discharge, respiratory distress, poor hair coat, hind limb weakness, and roaring sound. Cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chicks, rabbits, mice and pigeons are affected, but lactating cattle and sheep are far more susceptible.

Nitrate toxicity is concentration related. Lighter body types are more susceptible than heavy body types and smaller animals such as sheep and goats are more at risk than cattle.

Good agricultural practices reduce nitrates in agricultural produce to prevent toxic effects. Certain substances such as vitamins C and E inhibit the transformation of nitrate to nitrite to nitrosamines, reducing nitrate related toxicity to some extent….

Full article at FBAE.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:08 PM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 19, 2007

Excerpt…

No-till conservation practices have increased 35 percent since biotech crops came on the market in 1996.

Biotechnology has helped spur further adoption of environmentally beneficial conservation tillage practices, according to a study released Oct. 23 by an Indiana-based nonprofit group whose mission is to promote soil and water quality.

The benefits range from improved habitat for birds such as pheasants and bobwhite quail to cleaner drinking water and a reduction in harmful greenhouse gases and fuel use.

“An analysis of surveys conducted since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops strongly supports the conclusion that these crops developed through plant biotechnology are facilitating the continued expansion of conservation tillage, especially no-till,” said the study titled “Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can Improve the Environment By Reducing the Need to Plow.”

The study was written by Richard Fawcett, an environmental specialist with Farm Journal magazine and a former agronomy professor at Iowa State University, and Dan Towery, a natural resource specialist with the national Conservation Technology Information Center, which has ties to Purdue University in Indiana. It said that since biotech crops were first commercially grown in the United States in 1996, no-till conservation acreage has grown by 35 percent.

“There is a clear association between sustainable tillage practices and biotech crops,” said the study, noting that nearly three-fourths of no-till soybean acres — and 86 percent of no-till cotton acres — were planted with biotech varieties.

Conservation tillage is defined as any tillage and planting system that leaves more than 30 percent of the soil covered with crop residue to prevent erosion. There are several types of conservation tillage systems — no-till, ridge-till and mulch-till — with no-till being the best for the environment because the soil is left virtually undisturbed from harvest to planting, reducing erosion by 90 percent or more. In contrast, conventional-tillage leaves less than 15 percent of the soil covered with residue.

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:34 PM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 19, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of a great article published by the Council for Biotechnology Information about how plant biotechnology could help improve the crop yields for raspberry farmers.…

Biotechnology could be berry, berry good to this popular fruit.

Raspberries, mmmmm ... Whether plucking them off a bush on a hike in the mountains or buying them at the supermarket, we all love their sweet, summery taste.

About 90 percent of all raspberries in North America are grown in Oregon, Washington and California.

Unfortunately, some raspberries never make it into juice drinks, pies or cereal bowls because of a common berry disease called the Bushy Dwarf virus. That is one reason why raspberries are so expensive. But thanks to biotechnology, it won't be long before the virus is no longer a threat to these tasty and healthful berries.

One cup of raspberries provides 25 percent of the recommended daily allowance of vitamin C.

In the Northwest, where 90 percent of the raspberries in North America are grown, the Bushy Dwarf virus is all too common. When the virus attacks a raspberry bush, the bush stops producing the fruit we love and instead produces a small, crumbly berry that cannot be eaten. It does not take long for the virus to contaminate a whole field. Farmers then have no choice but to remove the infected plants, sterilize the soil and wait for five years before growing raspberries again. That means fewer raspberries and higher costs for consumers.

Raspberries provide more fiber per calorie than any common fruit -- even more than prunes.

So how can biotechnology help? By putting tiny bits of the virus in raspberry seeds, scientists can make bushes that will resist the virus. While this resistance will not save every bush, it will make it very difficult for the virus to travel from one raspberry bush to another, and that could save entire fields. Right now, scientists are still testing the biotech raspberry bushes, but if everything goes smoothly, they should be available to nurseries and plant breeders in about three years. After that, it may not be long before the exact same technology can be adapted to protect similar fruits such as blackberries, black raspberries and other dewberries.

Biotechnology will allow farmers to continue to make the best use of their land and consumers to get better food at better prices. And that is berry, berry good news for raspberry lovers….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:39 PM | Permalink

Chennai Online
July 14, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of a great article published by Chennai Online on the benefits of genetically modified seeds used in agricultural biotechnology…

Vellore, July 14: Genetically modified seeds planted by farmers would create a revolution in agriculture and help meet the needs of the growing population, district collector Dharmendra Pratap Yadav said today.

Speaking at a one-day workshop on 'Changed varieties of seeds in cultivation, he said farmers would have to plant genetically modified seeds for the increasing population. This would prevent crops from being destroyed by insects, be enduring and fetch them good returns.

The Collector advised cultivators to buy government certified seeds. These seeds had been brought out into the market after much work by agricultural research laboratories. "Not only are these seeds cost effective, but also require less water for irrigation," he said….

Full article at Chennai Online.

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

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
July 13, 2007

Here is an article published on FBAE.org by C Kameswara Rao, about plant biotechnology in the Telengana Region. There are reports of cattle and sheep dying allegedly on consuming Bt cotton plants, although no one has so far conclusively proven that Bt protein in the Bt cotton plants was the real culprit.

Excerpt…

Reports of cattle and sheep dying allegedly on consuming Bt cotton plants in the Warangal, Khammam and Adilabad Districts of the Telengana area of Andhra Pradesh (AP) in India (Deccan Herald, February 7, 2007; The Hindu, March 2, 2007; GM Watch, March 4, 2007; Hindustan Times, June 17, 2007; GM Watch, June 18, 2007; Hindustan Times, June 18, 2007), are a never dying story.

Cattle and sheep were dying even before Bt cotton cultivation came into practice in Telengana. No one has so far conclusively proved that Bt protein in the Bt cotton plants was the real culprit. During our visit to the Warangal district in December 2006, no one we met, other than the activists, said that the animals died because of the toxicity of Bt cotton plants. The All India Crop Biotechnology Association asserted that the deaths of sheep, goat and cattle were not related to consumption of Bt cotton leaves and plants, basing on the studies by the Centre for Animal Disease Research and Diagnosis of the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, on goats and rats that were fed with Bt cotton leftovers, which indicated no untoward clinical effects. Yet, the activists want the world to believe that Bt cotton plants cause these alleged animal deaths and so Bt transgenics should be banned.

The Hindu (March 2, 2007) reported that veterinary surgeons in the Telengana region were administering symptomatic treatment to farm animals that showed such symptoms as convulsions, nasal discharge, vomiting, diarrhea and respiratory problems. This is a pragmatic approach, since the 'culprit toxic substance is not identified’, but the long term mitigation of the problem lies in identifying the actual causes.

Since Bt protein was repeatedly established that it is not toxic to mammals on the basis of its mode of chemical action, we have been urging for an investigation that would establish the real causes.

If cattle are reported to be dying on eating Bt cotton plants only in the Telengana region of AP, the causes are probably elsewhere, other than with the Bt gene.

Water stress, so common in Telengana, leads to the accumulation of a large number of chemical compounds in the drying cotton plants, Bt or non-Bt, such as resins, polyphenols such as gossypol and several others, which can be toxic when consumed in large quantities.

Recently, scientists from four public sector laboratories such as the AP Forensic Science Laboratory, the Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, the Western Regional Disease Diagnostic Laboratory and Acharya NG Ranga Agriculture University, seem to have reported the presence of nitrates, nitrites, and residues of organophosphates in Bt cotton plants. Certainly, the Bt gene is not responsible for the occurrence of these compounds.

An article in the journal Current Science (February 2007) reported very toxic levels of nitrate in the leafy vegetables spinach and chenopodium sold in Delhi markets. Older plants and more fibrous parts of these vegetables such as the leaf stalks contained several times more nitrate than the herbaceous parts of the same plant. Post harvest cotton crop stubble is several months older and heavily fibrous. Stubble of non-Bt cotton and non-cotton crops in the same region too may contain nitrates, nitrites and organophosphates. The possibility that the affected cattle did not feed on such non-Bt stubble was not eliminated.

Details of specific poisonous chemical compounds, and their quantities in the feed and gastric residues in the affected animals, needed to make an objective evaluation are not available.

There is some overlap between the symptoms caused by nitrate and pesticide poisoning, on which separate articles are posted on this site. There is a correspondence between many symptoms reported of the dead animals and those of nitrates and insecticides.

Since the farmers use significantly lower quantities of insecticides on the Bt cotton crop, than on a non-Bt crop, nitrates and nitrites are more likely to be the toxicants than organophosphates. But this has to be established beyond the current assumptions from the public sector labs.

The reported statement of the Director, AP Department of Animal Husbandry, that ‘no biosafety studies of Bt cotton seeds had yet been conducted’, is factually incorrect. On the basis of extensive and intensive biosafety studies on Bt cotton conducted for over a decade in different parts of the world, its safety to mammals is not in doubt. Also important is the fact that while Bt cotton is being grown in nine states, no cattle toxicity complaints came, except from a few villages in AP. As observed by Hindustan Times (June 18, 2007), the situation does not warrant trashing the thousands of field tests and analyses done on the biosafety of Bt cotton….

Full article at FBAE.

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

FBAE
C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
July 13, 2007

Here is an article by C Kameswara Rao on plant biotechnology, pesticides, and insecticides.

Excerpt…

'Pesticide' is a collective term for natural or synthetic substances, which inhibit or kill insects (insecticides), nematodes (nematicides), snails (molluscicides), bacteria (bactericides), fungi (fungicides) and weeds (herbicides). Nevertheless, most often the term is used as synonymous with insecticides. While there are several insecticides of biological origin, such as the products of the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, the neem tree and others, control of crop insect pests has been dominated by synthetic insecticides for over half a century. Some insecticides may also be bactericidal or fungicidal.

There are more than 1100 officially recognized synthetic organic (that contain carbon) insecticides, which belong to a vast array of chemical groups, the more important being, a) the Organophosphates (OPs), with subgroups like organothiophosphates, derived from phosphoric acid, and b) Organochlorines (OCs), derived from chlorine. Carbamates and Pyrethroids are some of the other groups. Insecticides are referred by their common names, derived from the cumbersome scientific names. The trade use brand names, with the result the same insecticide may bear several trade names.

OPs and carbamates constitute over 70 per cent of all synthetic insecticides. The OPs are also a component of herbicides and even nerve gasses such as sarin. Disulfon, ethion, malathion, chlorpyrifos, and quanolfos are OPs, while DDT, lindane, methoxychlor, pentachlorphenol, camphechlor, endrine, endosulfon and imidacloprid are OCs. Thiodicarb is a carbamate and fenvalerate is a pyrethroid ester.

Chlorpyrifos, quinolfos, endosulfan, endrine, thiodicarb and fenvalerate are commonly used on the cotton crop. Imidacloprid (trade name Gaucho) is routinely used as cotton seed dressing.

Insecticides are not crop pest specific. They pose a serious risk to farm labour and farm animals, and most other animals in the environment that feed on insecticide sprayed crops, all of which suffer from insecticide poisoning, by dermal contact, inhalation or ingestion. The lack of target specificity and an indiscriminate and excessive insecticide application has disturbed large components of biodiversity of agricultural lands.

Most insecticides are not completely degraded and so leave residues in the food, feed, other agricultural produce, soil and water. Insecticide (pesticide) residues are poisonous, when the food or feed from insecticide sprayed crops was consumed, without proper cleaning. Insecticides and their residues also contaminate soil and water. In the process the natural food chain gets contaminated.

The nature and intensity of insecticidal toxicity depends upon the chemical structure of the insecticide and the mode of its action and not on whether it is natural or synthetic. The level of exposure and the concentration of the insecticide or its residue in the body are critical factors.

There are two states of insecticide poisoning, both of which are equally dangerous: the Acute State is when a single very high dose that may be lethal was administered and the Chronic State is one in which several sub-lethal doses were consumed over a long period of time, resulting in high concentrations in the body. Some insecticides may accumulate in the body and cumulatively reach hazardous concentrations. Chronic situations have indicated that about 60 per cent of the synthetic insecticides may cause cancer or Parkinson’s disease.

Toxicity of insecticides manifests in several different ways. OPs and carbamates are very potent neurotoxins that inhibit the enzyme choline esterase, leading to the loss of control of acetylcholine, the most important neurotransmitter. The OPs are degraded rapidly on exposure to light, air, soil and water….

Full article at FBAE.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 7:08 AM | Permalink

PRWeb
July 11, 2007

Excerpt…

AgBioWorld founder Professor C.S. Prakash of Tuskegee University and other AgBioWorld contributors have agreed to take over the GMO Food For Thought blog and plan to start offering a weekly synopsis of topics of concern to the agricultural biotech community covering the latest news and innovation.

(PRWEB) July 11, 2007 -- AgBioWorld founder Professor C.S. Prakash of Tuskegee University and other AgBioWorld contributors have agreed to take over the GMO Food For Thought blog and plan to start offering a weekly synopsis of topics of concern to the agricultural biotech community covering the latest news and innovation. The blog will also offer guest blog posts and industry news.

AgBioWorld provides science-based information on agricultural biotechnology issues to various stakeholders across the world. Its website and the newsletter AgBioView are a daily source of information for thousands of subscribers from dozens of countries. The AgBioWorld 'Declaration in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology' has been endorsed by more than 3,400 scientists, including 25 Nobel Laureates such as Dr. Norman Borlaug, Dr. James Watson, Dr. Arthur Kornberg, Dr. Marshall Nirenberg, Dr. Peter Doherty, Dr. Paul Berg, Mr. Oscar Arias Sanchez and Dr. John Boyer….

…On the Web
GMO Food For Thought - http://www.gmofoodforthought.com
AgBioWorld - http://www.agbioworld.org

Full article at PRWeb.

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

Genetic Modification blog
July 11, 2007

Excerpt…

One of the most promising uses for genetic modification being eyed in the future is on the field of medicine. There are a number of advances already being done in the field of genetic modification that may be able to allow researchers to someday be able to develop a wide range of medicines that will be able to treat a variety of diseases that current medicines may not be able to.

There are many ways that genetic modification can be used in the development of new medicines in the future. One of them is in the production of some human therapeutic proteins which is used to treat a variety of diseases. Current methods of producing these valuable human proteins are through human cell cultures but that can be very costly. Human proteins can also be purified from the blood, but the process always has the risk of contamination with diseases such as Hepatitis C and the dreaded AIDS. With genetic modification, these human proteins can be produced in the milk of transgenic animals such as sheep, cattle and goats. This way, human proteins can be produced in higher volumes at less cost.

Genetic modification can also be used in producing so-called nutriceuticals. Through this genetic modification can be used in producing milk from genetically modified animals in order to improve its nutritional qualities that may be needed by some special consumers such as those people who have an immune response to ordinary milk or are lactose intolerant. That is just one of the many uses that genetic modification may be able to help the field of medicine in trying to improve the quality of life….

Full article at Genetic Modification blog.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:34 PM | Permalink

Science blogs
Sandra Porter
July 11, 2007

Excerpt…

What do people in biotechnology do on the job?

What can students do with a science degree once they've finished college? Some answers can be found at the "Life Sciences Central web site. Created by the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County, this is a wonderful resource for anyone who's considering biotechnology for a potential career.

My favorite part of the site is the series of short video interviews from people in the biotech industry, describing what they do on the job and how they got there.

Ten interviews show a variety of people who work at different companies and in different positions. Surprisingly of the ten interviews, only one of the profiles is from a woman. This is strange and a bit misleading since it's been my experience that there are probably more women working in the biotech industry than males.

My two other criticisms are that the web site lists the names of the people without giving their job title in the list. You have to watch each video in order to find out. The other problem is that the videos start as soon as you open the page and they all have sound. Turn your sound off, first, unless you're in a place where sound will be okay.

But those are minor points. So, I thought I'd help.

I drew the picture below as a guide in order to help improve on this already valuable resource. The drawing shows my view of how a biotech company might be organized if it makes products that will be used for humans - i.e. biomedical….

Full article at Science blogs.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Agbioworld
Business Standard (India)
July 11, 2007

Excerpt…

Cotton farmers have earned an additional income of Rs 7,039 crore in 2006 after a 50 per cent increase in yield due to the used Bt cotton seed, says an Assocham report. Assocham's report 'Bt Cotton Farming in India', a joint effort of lndicus Analytics and lMRB, establishes the overall socio-economic benefits that have accrued to the cotton farmers as a result of the introduction of this technology.

"Farmers who planted Bt cotton 'Farmers who planted Bt cotton in 2006 earned an additional Rs 7,039 crore in income based on 8.77 million acreage penetration achieved during the crop season," the report said,

The report said that there has been about 50 per cent higher yield increase in Bt fields in 2006, when compared with conventional cotton fields.

"The net profit to farmers from Bt cultivations was significantly higher by 162% percent at Rs 7,757 per acre over conventional cotton," it said. While the use of Bt cotton has fetched farmers Rs 12,541 per acre, the conventional cotton has yielded Rs 4484 per acre, the study says.

"Bt cotton is now extensively used. India has become surplus in cotton and is ranked third in the world, About 3.8 million hectare of area is under Bt cultivation, which is a 2 per cent increase over 2006, across 9 states," said Anil K Agarwal, the former Assocham President.

The officials pointed out that despite the Bt seed costing 2.5 times more than the conventional ones, the farmers are able to generate additional income through savings in the reduction of pesticides besides the higher yield. "The total reduction in pesticide expense is Rs 934 per acre," an official said, adding overall cotton production had gone up by 31.20 million quintals of seed cotton or 18.35 million bales (I70 kg a bale) due to the shift.

As regarding the socio-economic benefit, the report said nearly 40 percent of the Bt users have endorsed the fact that they now need to spend less time on the field due to the adoption of Bt cotton. 'The time thus saved is utilized for nurturing their children by assisting them in education and planning their future, the report said….

Full article at Agbioworld.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:25 PM | Permalink

Seedquest
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Sharon Durham, (301) 504-1611, sharon.durham@ars.usda.gov

Here’s the excerpt from a great article by Sharon Durham of ARS News Service, published at Seedquest regarding agricultural biotechnology…

To help family farmers and seed producers better meet market demands and remain independent and profitable, a new initiative is under way. Spearheaded by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) plant geneticist Linda Pollak, it’s being called the Breeding High-Quality Corn for Sustainable, Low-Input Farming Systems--or HQ-LIFS--project.

Pollak and other scientists in the ARS Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit, Ames, Iowa, are collaborating on HQ-LIFS with Iowa State University scientists at Ames and the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute in East Troy, Wisconsin. The Practical Farmers of Iowa help with on-farm testing.

The goal of HQ-LIFS is to boost corn's nutritional content while making it more compatible with sustainable farming systems. The researchers mainly focus on breeding new plants that will provide smaller scale producers with corn, or maize, containing specific traits expected to soon be in high demand--such as for better organic feed grains and specialty uses. Corn varieties for feed and specialty markets that can be grown using small amounts of fertilizer are crucial….

…Read more about the research in the July 2007 issue of Agricultural Research magazine, available online at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/corn0707.htm

ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.

Full article at Seedquest .

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:16 PM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 10, 2007

Here is the excerpt of an article on biotech crops published by the Council for Biotechnology Information…

Excerpt…

Genetic 'survival skills' from hardy plants can be transferred to ag crops.

Dealing with drought and chronic water shortages may well be the agricultural challenge of the 21st century.

To help farmers meet that challenge, biotech researchers are developing new crop varieties designed to cope better in drier environments.

They’re taking clues from hardy survivors like the resurrection plant, a desert moss that can slow its activity down to zero when water’s scarce, and revive from almost complete dehydration.¹ Once they’ve isolated the genetic key to that behavior, researchers hope to use biotechnology to transfer the plant’s survival skills, and traits from other dry-weather plants such as sorghum, to make corn and other agricultural crops more drought tolerant.

Several research projects are zeroing in on plants’ internal “software” — the signaling pathways that trigger behavior under drought conditions.

Scientists at the University of California–San Diego have discovered the biological Morse code plants use to open and close their stomata — the tiny breathing pores through which 95 percent of water loss occurs.² Their next question: Can a plant be modified to close its stomatal pores more quickly in drought conditions, thereby conserving moisture?

Research into drought-tolerant plants is important because the world is getting drier. An expanding population that is growing more affluent creates more demand for food. Because about 70 percent of the fresh water people use every year goes to agriculture, water tables in many areas are falling. Arid regions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East are expanding while other areas, such as Brazil, are experiencing water shortages for the first time. If current consumption trends continue, two out of three people will live in water-stressed conditions by 2025, according to the U.N. Environment Program.³

In their current form, many crops drink deeply from the world’s dwindling water supply in order to survive — it takes about 106 gallons of water to grow a pound of wheat, for example.⁴

“Worldwide, drought is the biggest problem for food production,” said Jeffrey Bennetzen, a molecular geneticist at Purdue University, in a recent article in Science.⁵

Research into drought-defying crops is moving forward in several areas….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:08 PM | Permalink

GMO Pundit
University of Illinois (press release), via Agbioview
July 10, 2007

Here’s the excerpt of a great article published by GMO Pundit on the environmental benefits of GM crops.…

URBANA - Genetically modified seeds that are resistant to a low-toxicity herbicide, glyphosate, have a positive environmental impact when compared to other technologies to combat weeds, according to a recent University of Illinois study.

"With the emergence of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, the environmental consequences of alternatives to the use of genetically modified seed are of increasing importance," explained Gerald Nelson, a professor in the U of I Department of Agricultural and Consumer Sciences.

Nelson and his doctoral student Justin G. Gardner conducted a study that simulated the environmental effect of abandoning the glyphosate-resistant seed if weeds develop immunity to it. They utilized a well-known mammalian toxicity measure, the LD 50 dose for rats (the volume of pesticide needed to kill 50 percent of a test population of rats), to assess one potential environmental impact. They simulated the consequences for corn, soybeans, and cotton.

"With conventional tillage, we found that the use of GR seeds reduces the number of LD 50 doses applied per hectare by 17 percent to 98 percent, depending on the crop," said Nelson. "With no-till, the use of GR seeds reduces LD 50 doses only in corn.

"If farmers switch to conventional seeds because of GR-resistant weeds but maintain the same tillage practices, our simulation suggests that LD 50 doses could increase by as much as 100 LD 50 doses per hectare in soybeans, and 500 LD 50 doses per hectare in cotton, or 11.4 and 19.8 percent, respectively."

Reducing LD 50 doses per hectare generally depends on the crop and whether the tillage system changes….

…Recently summarized in Science magazine, the detailed results are available in a paper forthcoming in the Journal of Pest Management Science.

Full article at GMO Pundit.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:08 PM | Permalink

Saúde Integral
Thomas Deichmann
Kolner Stadt-Anzeiger
July 10 2007

Here’s the excerpt from a great article by Thomas Deichman of Kohner Stadt-Anzeiger, published at Saúde Integral. Scares from March 2007 regarding GM crops all smoke and mirrors, a finding immediately reached by several scientific institutions.…

A brouhaha like this over food is nearly unprecedented. Seldom have so many emotional and financial resources been squandered, in order to repeatedly reach the same conclusion: MON863 corn is safe. But for many, this message is obviously so hard to swallow that they aren't even willing to hear it.

MON863 was developed in the genetic engineering laboratories of the US multinational Monsanto. It is equipped with the ability to defend against corn rootworm, it is grown on millions of acres - and eaten by countless humans and animals. And why not? It is exactly as safe as the yellow cobs we grow domestically. This was confirmed all over again last Thursday by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The reason why the authority had to clarify matters once more is an announcement by the environmental group Greenpeace in March 2007. Its Hamburg office had reported a new "study by independent French scientists" who claimed that "gene-corn" carries "potential health risks." In rat feeding studies, the animals allegedly showed "symptoms of poisoning and damage to the liver and kidneys." And supposedly, for the first time, "a health risk for approved gene-plants has been proven."

In reality, however, there were no new sensational bioassays. Greenpeace had only reinterpreted old feeding studies, which were sufficiently examined already some years ago and verified. All smoke and mirrors, a finding immediately reached by several scientific institutions.

At the end of March, the Federal Institute for Risk Evaluation (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung) stated that the "renewed statistical analysis of the data does not provide any reason" to question the earlier findings. One month later, the same thing was notified by France's Sood Safety Authority (AFSSA). In the mean time, the EFSA experts had also begun to evaluate the new Greenpeace interpretations of the bioassays. From it "no new safety concerns" emerged, according to the latest announcement.

The nation has once again trembled because of a statement by the "German fear industry". For the anti-genetic-engineering-front, however, the accomplishment is trivial…

Full article at Saúde Integral.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:00 PM | Permalink

Portland Press Herald
Douglas Johnson
July 10, 2007

Excerpt…

For the past 10 years, opponents of biotechnology-enhanced crops in Maine have claimed bragging rights over the fact that our state is the only one in the nation to have turned down applications for growing Bt corn -- corn modified to contain the natural pesticide bacillus thuriengensis.

Though the close vote of the Board of Pesticides Control denying the applications in 1997 was officially because need for the corn had not been demonstrated, everyone close to the fray knew it was organized opposition, much of it from organic farmers, that shaped the outcome.

Now, three manufacturers of the seed have decided to try again and the fight has erupted anew. This time the battle isn't over whether Bt corn hurts monarch butterflies or causes other environmental calamities; solid science in the intervening years has settled those questions with a resounding no.

This time organic growers are claiming Bt corn will cross- pollinate their organic corn, causing it to lose its organic status. This newspaper supports that claim and in an editorial called on the Board of Pesticides Control to include adequate buffer zones as a condition of approval ("Before Maine gets Bt corn, protect organic crops," July 15).

Is the concern about cross-pollination justified? Should Maine's organic farmers be worried? Corn is an open pollinating crop, so pollen from one corn field theoretically can pollinate a nearby one. But corn pollen is heavy and doesn't travel far. It also loses viability quickly. Wind direction, weather and different maturity dates all play a role in cross-pollination.

Both research and practical experience tell us that cross- pollination between biotech and organic corn is not a problem. A biotech-enhanced corn that is resistant to herbicide sprays has been planted in Maine for years. Yet not one complaint has been lodged against it by organic growers. A study in Spain showed that after six years of cultivation, Bt corn can co-exist with organic and conventional corn "without economic and commercial problems." A 2004 report on U.S. co-existence reached a similar conclusion….

Full article at Portland Press Herald.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 7:39 AM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 9, 2007

Here is an excerpt of an article on agricultural biotechnology published by Council for Biotechnology Information.

Excerpt…

George Acquaah of Ghana describes how biotechnology can benefit the people of Africa.

As a native of Ghana, and a professor at Langston University in Oklahoma, I see both the enormous challenges facing the people of Africa and the potential solutions. Growing up in Africa, I saw firsthand so many of the problems that people in the United States only read about: chronic hunger, children going blind from malnutrition and people dying from treatable diseases. As a scientist, I find biotechnology a challenging field, but as an African, I am genuinely encouraged by its potential to help alleviate these problems that plague Africa and developing countries around the world.

"Vitamin A deficiency leads to approximately half a million cases of permanent childhood blindness and 1 million to 2 million deaths."

One of the gravest health issues facing Africa is malnutrition and the diseases it spawns. For example, vitamin A deficiency leads to approximately half a million cases of permanent childhood blindness and 1 million to 2 million deaths each year. Part of the reason is that the staple foods of many Africans are starchy crops like rice and cassava that do not provide enough nutrients. Now there is real hope in a new type of rice called "golden rice" that is fortified through biotechnology with beta-carotene, the nutrient the body uses to make vitamin A. This technology could soon be used to increase the levels of vital nutrients in other crops as well.

Food storage is another significant problem in Africa because of the lack of refrigeration. Tons of food rot before they get to the market. Biotechnology could help to prevent these losses by producing crops that ripen more slowly. If crops ripened more gradually, there would be more time to get them to market before they spoil, and far less food would go to waste.

"In East Africa, a virus can destroy an entire maize crop ..."

Biotechnology could also help reduce hunger by decreasing the amount of food lost to pests and disease before it is harvested. In East Africa, a virus can destroy an entire maize crop, and between 20 percent and 80 percent of the sweet potato crop is lost to pests and disease every year. Scientists have already developed some types of crops that resist insects and disease, and more are on the way. Less food lost means less hunger.

Helping farmers in developing countries grow more food will go a long way toward reducing hunger and, by developing crops that can grow in difficult conditions like poor soil, extreme heat and drought that are common in much of Africa, biotechnology could help local farmers grow more food….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:03 PM | Permalink

The Canberra Times
July 9, 2007

Here’s a letter to the editor by David Tribe on GM crops. This letter was published in The Canberra Times.

Excerpt…

Canberra Times readers deserve something better than depressingly false rumours about genetic technology by Brian Souter (Letters, July 5).

Souter, for instance, mentions that Russian scientist Irina Ermakova found that many of her laboratory rats died when they were fed GM soy meal.

What he doesn't mention is that Ermakova is not an experienced nutritionist, and that the rats in her laboratory also died at extraordinarily high rates (6.8 per cent to 9 per cent) when fed "non-GM" rations.

This compares to "10 to 15-fold lower" death rates seen in well-run laboratories.

It is thus quite clear to experienced researchers in this field such as Hiroaki Aoyama, of Japan, who recently visited Australia that Ermakova's claims that GM soy meal is deadly are without any scientific foundation.

Souter makes other wild claims. He blames farmer suicides in India on genetic technology, but since 2003 a remarkable second green revolution has taken place in India, bringing unprecedented prosperity to the Indian cotton industry.

Souter doesn't see the relevance of the new green revolution, but since 2003 Indian national cotton output has doubled, and yields per hectare have risen by two thirds.

Both conventional commercial cotton hybrids and insect-protected GM cotton have played a part in the resurgence, and all Souter can see is farmer suicides….

Full letter to the editor at The Canberra Times.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:16 PM | Permalink

Council for Biotechnology Information
July 8, 2007

Excerpt…

Jimmy Carter speaks out against anti-biotech "propaganda."

Growing biotech crops in Africa has gained another voice of support in former U.S. president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter.

In a speech in September at the United Nations University in Tokyo,1 Carter spoke about the need for further aid for sub-Saharan Africa. His goal in speaking was, "to address perhaps the most basic human right of all: for food to eat."

Carter spoke at length about the need for more aid targeted for agricultural development in Africa. He also made clear his objections to those who would keep the fruits of biotechnology out of the hands of people who need it most.

"We must combat the false propaganda of some European extremists who condemn the use of genetically modified seeds," Carter said. "Their misleading statements have been extremely damaging to Africa, where some misguided leaders have rejected such imports."

In 2002, several African countries debated whether to accept food aid — including corn developed with biotechnology — from the United States. In the end, only one country, Zambia, rejected the food aid outright. But the debate over the safety of biotech food that is eaten every day by North Americans continues as hunger becomes even more widespread in Africa….

Full article at Council for Biotechnology Information.

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