FBAE Blog

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org

http://www.fbae.org/Channels/Views/bombs.htm

The GM Watch honored me by the ‘Pants on Fire Award’ for the ‘Biggest pack of lies—2006’, for writing in a blog on November 3, 2006, that the Golden Rice was protected from vandalism in a bomb-proof bunker in an unspecified place in Switzerland. I wrote much the same earlier in 2001 and 2002, but that did not attract the ire of GM Watch then.

GM Watch has brought out the issue of the Award and the ‘biggest pack of lies’ again on November 9, 2007. I would like my readers to know that I was neither the first nor the only one, who wrote about the extreme measures taken to protect Golden Rice.

I quote below and provide links to four of several articles that were my sources:

1. New York Times, November 21, 2000
2. AGNET, November, 21, 2000
3. Biotech Info, November 27, 2000

‘Golden Rice in a Grenade-Proof Greenhouse: In a quiet village on the outskirts of Zurich, a genetically engineered strain of rice, that its creator says could save millions of children's lives, is locked up in a grenade-proof greenhouse, as if it were the Frankenstein monster.’

4. Reason online, December 6, 2000

‘These groups (referring to the Institute of Science in Society, Greenpeace and some others, detailed in another part of the article) are adept at sketching out scary scenarios. They're also known for their "decontamination" raids on biotech crop fields throughout Europe, where they rip up or vandalize genetically modified crops. Thus, the Ft. Knox treatment for golden rice. Researchers are afraid that activists will try to take the product out before it's even able to get to markets in the developing world. It's locked away in a grenade-proof greenhouse in Switzerland.’

There were some other articles published during November-December 2000 or later, one or two of which used the word ‘bomb’ and ‘bunker’ but the links are not working now.

A personal communication from Professor Ingo Potrykus, the force behind Golden Rice, avers that by 1986 opposition to plant genetic engineering in Switzerland was so fierce that the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology decided to construct a grenade poof bacteria-tight glass green house (up to biosafety level 4) for him to continue his work on transgenic crops, more particularly Bt rice and Golden Rice, without fear from physical disturbance. This green house is still functioning since 1988, to protect the crops in development.

This greenhouse is outside Zurich and the actual location is unspecified. A grenade is a small bomb, hand thrown or machine discharged and an explosive-proof structure is a bunker, greenhouse or not.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Below is a blog entry that I found from fellow biotechnology blogger C.S. Prakash on his blog GMO Food for Thought. He posts weekly summaries of what his group, AgBioWorld, is discussing.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

AgBioWorld Members Discuss Pope’s Message, Norman Borlaug and Holiday Gift Ideas

Pope’s Message Positive Towards Biotechnology

Abstract: A member posted a link to an excerpt of the Pope’s "Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace." The member noted that this was a positive piece and encouraged others to distribute it widely. He pulled on a specific quote from the piece that he felt best represented the positive aspect of the message.

"We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves."

Source: Vatican Web site

Norman Borlaug Nominated as Possible Washington Post “Noblest People of the Year”

Abstract: A member posted a link and short excerpt from a Technology Review article on the accomplishments of Norman Borlaug, founder of modern biotechnology. The article discusses his first attempts at breading a better wheat crop. The article also discusses the criticism he received from around the world. In response to this article another member posted a link to a Washington Post contest, Noblest People of the Year, in which Borlaug is part of. Readers of the Washington Post have been asked to pick three from the list. The member encouraged fellow members to vote for Borlaug.

Sources: Technology Review
Washington Post

Books as a Holiday Gift

Abstract: Members discussed the idea of giving books as a holiday gift for the person who “has everything.” One member suggested the book “On Bullshit” by Harry G. Frankfurt. He notes that while giving books as a gift can be “iffy” this book is only 67 pages long and since it is hard-bound, “it will look good on any shelf.” Another member suggested the book "Bad Thoughts", by Jamie Whyte.

Resources:
Bad Thoughts on Amazon
On Bullshit on Amazon

AgBioWorld is comprised of ag-biotech experts who take a keen interest in the latest news and events important to ag-biotech. This blog aims to be a reflection of those events and news stories that have captured our attention. Please share your comments and feelings on the current climate for biotech with us as well.

Best regards,

C.S. Prakash

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 4:26 PM | Permalink

I just found an entry on the GMO Africa blog on research that found genetically modified crops pose no threat to the environment. Thanks to James for posting this information, check it out below and follow the link to this site to read more.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

New study discounts GM crops gene flow theory
GMO Africa
December 16, 2007

There has been an explosive debate on the effects of genetically modified (GM) crops on human health and the environment. Critics, especially the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, have sought to cast GM crops as posing great threat to conventional farming methods. They contend that GM crops haven’t been tested enough and, therefore, threaten the environment and the health of consumers.

There are arguments out there, which haven’t been scientifically verified, that gene flow from GM crops can harm the environment. They have gained traction, courtesy of one or two reports affirming so, but which have been discredited by the scientific community. In 2002, for example, the journal Nature published an article that claimed genetically modified maize under field trials in Mexico had “contaminated” their conventional varieties. Anti-biotech groups celebrated the news, but one year later Nature backtracked on the report. In a statement, the journal said:

In the light of the criticisms and advice from referees, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify its publication of the original paper.

Since then, more and more research reports have been published that show the superficiality of the the so-called GM crops gene flow theory. Last week, for instance, researchers at the University of California - Davis, published a report that shows genes from GM crop plants pose no threat to the environment. The report by Kent Bradford and Pat Bailey appears on the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) web site. CAST is an international consortium of scientists and scientific organizations that promote public understanding of science and technology. A news article on this highly significant report is available on the UC Davis web site.

Read more…

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:37 PM | Permalink

The new chief scientist in the United Kingdom the week announced that he supported legislation that would allow farmers to grow genetically engineered crops. Read the interesting article I found below.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

We need GM crops, says new chief scientist
The London Times
December 13, 2007

The Government’s new chief scientist will press ministers to reopen the case for growing genetically modified crops commercially and back the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations.

John Beddington, who succeeds Professor Sir David King in the influential job next month, endorsed his predecessor’s outspoken support for the controversial technologies yesterday, saying that he saw both as important to Britain’s future.

In his first public appearance since his appointment, Professor Beddington told MPs that he saw no safety reasons for opposing GM crops, which could help to boost farm yields and keep down food prices. Although GM technology would not be the right solution for every agricultural problem, and it would be important to assess the environmental impact, he said that the new crops should be considered on their merits, case by case.

Professor Beddington took a similar approach to nuclear power, saying that although a new generation of reactors would not solve Britain’s energy needs on their own they would be an important part of the mix.

His support for GM technology comes as scientists and business leaders have sought recently to put the issue back on the Government’s agenda.

Sir David used his valedictory speech last month to urge the Prime Minister to give his active support to GM crops.

Read more…

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:24 PM | Permalink

I also found this article on AgBios about some Canadian Farmers who found that they earn more money with GM canola than conventional or organic canola farmers (about $14 a hectare more according to the article.) Read more below.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

Canada GM canola growers $14/ha "better off"
AgBios
December 12, 2007

Canadian farmers are about $14 a hectare better off growing genetically modified canola, says Canola Council of Canada's chairman, Stew Gilroy. Mr Gilroy says the major drivers are lower input costs, especially herbicides, better weed management and better yields - up to 10pc better than conventional varieties available in Canada.

He says the lower costs and higher yields far outweigh the extra cost of the GM technology users agreement paid to the patent holders.

Growers in Canada are roughly split between Monsanto's glyphosate tolerant line and Bayer's glufosinate ammonium tolerant cultivar.

"There is no doubt these technologies offer easier and cheaper alternatives for weed control than conventional varieties," Mr Gilroy says.

He says the thorny issue of weed resistance had not been an issue in Canada. To date there have been no confirmed cases of glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium resistant weeds in the major production area of western Canada.

"The development of resistant weeds is certainly a concern but as we have seen with weeds that are resistant to other classes of chemistry, alternate management options can usually be developed," he says.

Read more…

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 8:33 PM | Permalink

Biotechnology developer Monsanto issued a press release this week about the addition of a new online video featuring GMO experts discussing the benefits of genetically modified crops. Check the press release below and click on the link for the press release.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

Experts agree on need for GM crops in developing countries
Check Biotech
December 11, 2007

St. Louis, MO - In a new online video and podcast released today, eight globally recognized and distinguished experts discuss how GM crops are able to deliver significant benefits to small-scale, subsistence farming operations in developing countries and emphasize the need to expand the availability of this farming technology in these areas of the world.

“Here is a technology that is not only scale neutral, but delivers more benefits to the poor,” says Dr. Clive James, chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). “For example, in the U.S., you would expect, on average, to increase productivity by five percent. If you use Bt maize … in the Philippines, that increase is 40 percent.”

Economic research to date does not support the widely held perception that agricultural biotechnology benefits only large farms. A 2006 review of peer-reviewed research by Dr. Terri Raney, senior economist of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), summarizes that the technology may be “pro-poor,” and concludes that economic results to-date suggest that farmers in developing countries can benefit from transgenic crops.

“What they typically require is a kind of an empowering tool, which allows them to reduce uncertainties, get greater incomes, and also to be able to invest more in their own households, as well as on the farm. What biotechnology enables them is precisely this,” says Dr. Laveesh Bhandari, economist and director of Indicus Analytics in India, who recently studied the impact of this new technology in farming on households and communities in India.

Read more…

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:26 PM | Permalink

The author of the following article discusses the debate in Australia surrounding genetically modified canola. Click on the link at the bottom to read the full article.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

Growing GM canola a smart move
The Grapevine
December 08, 2007

Last week, the State Government of Victoria announced that the five-year moratorium on the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) canola would be lifted in early 2008. New South Wales has also announced that it will lift its ban. South Australia is expected to follow soon whilst Tasmania wants to maintain its prohibition. The lifting of the moratorium is a highly controversial decision, but one that I welcome.

This story goes back to 2003 when the Commonwealth Government’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) approved the cultivation of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor® and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus) for commercial oil production. In response, most Australian states (which have constitutional authority over agriculture) imposed 5-year moratoria on the basis that the economic and environmental risk was still unknown.

This was a sensible decision because it permitted more scientific and economic research to be conducted and for the community and farmers to express their concerns to government and industry.

Read More…

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 9:27 AM | Permalink

Food Navigator
December 05, 2007

The genetically modified LLRice62 poses no evident harm to humans, animals or the environment, according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

German chemicals company Bayer CropScience applied for the placing of the GM rice on the market for food and feed uses, but not for cultivation, in August 2004. Following extensive scientific assessment, the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms has now released its opinion.

"LLRice62 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health or on the environment in the context of its intended uses," said the report.

The European Commission will now put the decision on whether the rice will be made available on the European market in the hands of the relevant committee.

The genetic modification intends to provide tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium.

The EFSA board concluded that the labelling proposal in the application is also in line with the EU requirements, saying that GM LLRice62 is compositionally and phenotypically equivalent to its non-genetic equivalent except for the introduced traits.

Spokesperson for Beyer, Annette Josten, told FoodNavigator.com: "We are pleased with the recent announcement. We believe that our herbicide-tolerant rice could contribute significantly to increasing rice productivity in certain global markets, both in terms of quality and yield."

Despite the opinion from EFSA, it may be some time before the rice appears on the market - if at all.

Adeline Farrelly, communications director at EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, said that such decision-making processes can prove lengthy.

She said: "There are many products that have gained approval worldwide but that are still stuck in the European system. These are traders' crops and so the slow process causes problems for them and results in a shortage of supplies for Europe."

It is already approved for import and cultivation in the US and Canada, but has not been commercialised there.

The committees often have difficulties reaching a majority decision, as with the issue on the European Commission proposal to lift Austria's restrictions on the import and processing two types on GM maize - MON 810 and T25.

The last GM product to be approved for cultivation in Europe was in 1998. Some genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been approved since then for import, but only very slowly.

Farelly added: "We believe the Commission should accept it responsibility and sort out the backlog of products waiting for approval."

Earlier this year, Greenpeace filed a petition against the use of Bayer's LLRice62 for food, animal feed and processing.

Green agencies have concerns about the unknown impact GMOs may have on the environment, particularly in regards to cross-contamination.

"The long term effects of GM crops have not been properly researched and, by cross-pollinating with non-GM crops and wild plants, they replicate themselves and contaminate the environment with genetic pollution that is impossible to clean up," said Greenpeace.

Friends of the Earth Food campaigner Richard Hines said: "Time and time again consumers have made it clear that they don't want to eat GM food. But if Bayer's LLRice62 is given approval, people across Europe will face the prospect of finding GM rice on their plates."

He added: "Switching to GM has been disastrous for many farmers, but a green light in Europe would give Bayer the go-ahead to push for GM rice cultivation in the developing world. It is therefore vital that Commission doesn't forget the worldwide health, environmental and social impacts of their decision."

Source: Food Navigator

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 9:11 AM | Permalink

Farmers Weekly Interactive
by Paul Spackman
December 02, 2007

Genetically Modified (GM) crops could be accepted across Europe in less than 10 years, despite the UK government’s “shameful” reluctance at present.

That was the prediction of Cranfield University’s Sean Rickard, speaking at the British Potato 2007 conference in Harrogate (28 November).

“Biotechnology is the next big technology driver in the world and the only way we can respond to the challenges of climate change is through GM. It is shameful of our government that we now lag behind the rest of the world.”

But the government had not dismissed the technology completely and public acceptance was increasing, he said. “In the next two or three years consumers will be prepared to experiment with GM. Once consumers and supermarkets stances’ change, things will move very quickly.”

The University of London’s Sir Colin Berry agreed. “Hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been eating GM crops for the best part of 15 years now, with no ill effects. Most questions have been answered and we’re ignoring a lot of positive things GM can offer.” The economic cost of not adopting GM technology had already been estimated at £2-3bn, but the UK had also lost much of its scientific expertise in this area to other non-European countries, he said.

Mr Rickard said the general public had an “irrational fear” of GM technology, whipped up by the media, and it was down to the farming industry and scientists to educate people about the benefits it could deliver. This was particularly relevant given a predicted 50% increase in world population by 2050, pressure to find alternatives to oil and the impact climate change could have on global cropping.

The growth in ‘ethical food’ such as organic and Fair Trade lines could prove to be a limiting factor in the uptake of GM food by consumers – in the short term at least. Premium markets are worth around £15bn per year and expected to grow to £20bn in five years time, which would outperform the broader grocery market, said IGD chief economist James Walton.

Some 83% of households bought something organic last year and the Fair Trade market alone was worth £250m per year.

“Until recently ethical food tended to be the preserve of hippies and eccentrics, but ethics have become mainstream and consumers are a lot more aware of the effects of their buying decisions.” Much of this had been driven by the media, he said. “Media interest in good eating has never been stronger. Suppliers have real potential to prosper.”

Crops that required little or no processing, such as dairy, eggs, fruit and vegetables, were most likely to be bought by ‘ethical shoppers’ as there was a clear association with the grower and land, he added.

Will the pressure to secure food supplies convince UK consumers to accept GM technology? Tell us what you think at www.fwi.co.uk.

Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 8:54 AM | Permalink